Complaint filed on: 01-06-2010 Disposed on: 19-11-2010 BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 C.C.No.1236/2010 DATED THIS THE 19th NOVEMBER 2010 PRESENT SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER Complainant: - S.N.Hamsaveni s/o. N.Srinivas, R/at No.3, 1st Main, 3rd Cross, New Police Station Road, Muniappa Garden 2nd stage, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore-36 V/s Opposite parties: - 1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, Head office at G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-06 2. The branch manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, No.31, Ground Floor, 1st Cross, New Mission road, Next to Bangalore Stock exchange, Bangalore O R D E R SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., The grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties in brief is, that she had insured her vehicle Advaith Hyudai with Ops with declared value of the vehicle as Rs.3,28,800/-. The insurance was renewed and was in effect from 3-4-2009. That the vehicle met with an accident on 16-10-2009 and he got it repaired with Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore. The surveyor of the Ops inspected the vehicle and estimated, cost of repair as Rs.5,965/- on 21-10-2009. That she received a SMS from the Ops in they having registered her claim for reimbursement of the damages. On her contacting the Ops on 23-10-2009 she was informed to had been given 20% of no claim bonus erroniously and she has to make good the amount so that they can reimburse the repair cost. Then on 26-10-2009 she received letter from Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd informing that because of no claim of bonus, Ops have not sent letter for cashless repair and requested her to pay the bill amount of Rs.5,272/-. Then she paid the amount and took the vehicle to her possession. That the Ops therefore have failed to reimburse the repair expenditure of Rs.5,272/-, despite the valid insurance and because of delay she had even incurred expenditure of Rs.300/- per day towards auto charges for contacting the Ops and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Ops to reimburse repair charges of Rs.5,272/- and to award compensation for deficiency in their service and Rs.20,000/- for hardship and mental agony with cost. 2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version, contending that the insurance policy of the complainant’s vehicle expired on 9-3-2009. Then the complainant applied for issuance of the policy by producing document covering her vehicle for the period from 3-4-2009 to 2-4-2010 and accordingly policy was issued. While issuing that policy they had sent letter to the complainant, that she was allowed 20% no claim bonus upon the claim details available, at the time of renewal notice. On verification of records, they found, on basis of material supplied no claim bonus under the policy issued from 3-4-2009 to 2-4-2010 was allowed and that needed to be reversed and therefore requested the complainant to refund no claim bonus given amounting to Rs.1.970/- by 11-11-2009 and also informed the complainant, that on the complainant refunding that amount of Rs.1,970/- they would consider reimbursement of repair charges as claimed by the complainant. It is further stated by these Ops that based on the surveyor report as well as the documents available, reimbursement of repair charges to the tune of Rs.4,282/- was approved and cheque was also kept ready for delivering it to the complainant but cheque was withheld until the complainant repaid Rs.1,970/-, that no claim bonus that was allowed to her. The Ops denying any deficiency at their end attributing suppression of fact to the complainant have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Shankaraiah authorized signatory for the Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of insurance policy, copy of letter of workshop, copy of invoice with a copy of legal notice. Ops have produced a copy of the policy, condition, copy of declaration given by the complainant, copy of a latter, they had addressed to the complainant for repaying Rs.1,970/- wrongly paid to the complainant towards no claim bonus and copies of other expenditure with Xerox copies of photographs of the car. Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments, We have heard the counsel for the OPs and perused the records. 4. On the above materials following points for determination arise. 1) Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have caused deficiency in their service in not reimbursing her vehicle repair charges? 2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to? 5. Our findings are as under: Point no.1: In the affirmative Point no.2: See the final Order REASONS 6. Answer on Point No.1: On going through the contention of both parties as put forth by them through their complaint, version and affidavit evidence, we not do find much dispute between them with regard to the ownership of the vehicle, issue of insurance policy, coverage of the accident period extent of damage, claim and liability of the Ops to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant. That on account of an accident of the complainant’s vehicle, the complainant got estimated the damage to her vehicle and got it repaired by paying Rs.5,272/- and she has claimed reimbursement of that amount. Whereas, the Ops by relying upon their surveyor estimation, the damage was estimated at Rs.4,282/- and therefore the Ops have contended their liability was to the extent of that amount. The complainant in para no.12 of the complaint has admitted that letter of OP No.2 disclosed that they had considered to her claim for Rs.4,282/- as against the early estimation of Rs.5,272/-. The complainant it is found has not seriously dispute do the estimation of expenditure by Ops at Rs.4,282/-. 7. The Ops found to have repudiated the claim of the complainant, on the ground that, they had while issuing renewed police for the period from 3-4-2009 to 2-4-2010, they had allowed no claim bonus based on the records and on verification realized that it is required to be reversed and they found that allowing no claim bonus of Rs.1,970/- was wrongly done and informed the complainant to refund that amount so that they can reimburse the repair expenditure and they had even given time to the complainant to refund that money at least by 11-11-2009 and they had even told the complainant if she do not refund that amount within that date, then her claim for reimbursement would be repudiated. The Ops since did not receive Rs.1,970/- from the complainant stated to have repudiated the claim of the complainant. 8. On perusal of the defence of the Ops, they have not made clear, why they first allowed no claim bonus and as to why they latter on realized that to be reversed, it was only in the argument, it was stated that prior to renewal of the policy from 3-4-2009 to 2-4-2010, the complainant had made certain claim from them. Without disclosing the claim made as such they had allowed no claim bonus and given bonus of Rs.1,970/- and renewed the policy. But on their letter, considering the materials found that the complainant was not entitled to no claim bonus of Rs.1,970/- and therefore demanded repayment of that amount from the complainant and withheld the reimbursement of repair charges. The Ops invited our attention to an under taking given by the complainant as per Ex-R-4, wherein the complainant had declared if no claim bonus claimed by her found to be incorrect, then all her claims shall be stand forfeited under the policy. The Ops contending that this complainant suppressing the fact of certain claim she had made got the new policy obtained with the advantage no claim bonus and therefore she was told to repay Rs.1,970/- but the complainant did not pay that amount. Thus reimbursement of the amount for which the complainant was entitled was withheld. The complainant has not denied these facts and has not contraverted. Hence, we hold that the complainant by suppressing the fact that she was not entitled for no claim bonus prior to the renewal of the policy obtained that facility of bonus. But when it was brought to her notice the claim was erroneous and when she was told to refund that money, she did not repay and therefore the Ops withheld the repair chargers. Though the Ops are found to be within their power but if it is viewed from other angle, the Ops also found to have committed an error. The Ops when they have found the complainant did not refund no claim bonus of Rs.1,970/-, they could have out of the repair estimated charge of Rs.4,282/- could have deducted Rs.1,970/- and sent a cheque for balance amount. But without resorting to that method have withheld entire amount compelling the complainant to approach this forum, which could have been avoided. It is not the contention of the Ops that because of suppressing of the fact by the complainant she has forfeited her right to claim reimbursement, what they have stated to have withheld reimbursement for nonpayment of no claim bonus. Thus the complaint needs to be allowed, however, we find both parties have contributed their suppression and error respectively, which led to filing of the complaint. With this observation, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order: ORDER Complaint is allowed in part. OPs are jointly and severally held liable, are directed to pay Rs.2,312/- which is reminder after deducting Rs.1970/- from out of Rs.4,282/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which, Ops shall pay interest at 9% per annum on that amount from the date of this order till the date of payment. Under the circumstance of this case, both parties to bear their own cost. Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 19th November 2010. Member President
| | [HONORABLE Ganganarsaiah] Member[HONORABLE Sri D.Krishnappa] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Anita Shivakumar. K] Member | |
