BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 74/2012 Filed on 05.03.2012

ORDER DATED: 28.07.2017

Complainant:

Christopher Anthony Rennie, Glass House, V.P 1/1603, Kuzhiamvila, Avaduthura, Vizhinjam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

                             (By Adv. N. Padmini)            

Opposite parties:

1. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411 006.

2. M/s Bajaj Allianz Policy Servicing Office, T.C 28/222(5), Anugraha, 2^nd Floor, M.G. Road, Pazhavangadi, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

This C.C having been heard on 02.06.2017, the Forum on 28.07.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that he had taken a householder’s package from the opposite parties from 2005 onwards.  The complainant had never failed to renew the policy.  The complainant’s policy number was OG-10-1601-4091-00000037 and the latest renewal of the policy was made on 13.01.2010 and the period of insurance starts from the midnight of 14.01.2010 and ends in the midnight of 13.01.2011.  The premium amount is Rs. 10,480/-.  The house of the complainant is having lot of glass panels and sliding glass doors and being a foreigner complainant was assured by the opposite parties that the particular policy covers plate glass, fire and allied perils, burglary, break down of domestic appliances and workman’s compensation.  On 13.02.2010 the four glass doors with its teak frame got totally damaged and have to be replaced.  The complainant submitted a detailed estimate of Rs. 65,000/- in the opposite party’s office on 18.02.2010.  The surveyor of the opposite parties made survey of the damages and submitted the report to the opposite parties.  On 20.04.2010 the complainant received a letter from the opposite parties stating that the coverage is subject to maximum of Rs. 5,000/- for each and every claim.  On 31.05.2010 the complainant received a letter from the Cochin office of the opposite parties which intimates the complainant that his claim was limited to Rs. 8,218/- towards the settlement of the total claim.  The opposite parties’ assessment for four teak fixtures and plate glass is Rs. 8,218/- and the insured amount for the same is Rs. 3,50,000/-.  The amount offered won’t even cover the labour charges.  The complainant had to replace the same as it was a necessary.  Hence he replaced the same by paying Rs. 52,000/- and the opposite parties are bound to cover the replacement cost of the damaged items.  The opposite parties’ surveyor had examined and assessed the damage in the presence of the contractor.  The complainant sent a lawyer’s notice dated 01.07.2010 and opposite parties send reply.  The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant had insured the glass and seasoned teak structure for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and the premium amount is Rs. 10,480/-.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of 52,000/- with interest along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 15,000/-.

Opposite parties accepted notice and entered appearance.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly filed version.

In the version opposite parties contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  This opposite party had appointed an IRDA approved independent surveyor immediately after receiving the intimation from complainant and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 8,218/-.  The complainant had taken a householder’s package policy and submitted claim for the loss due to the damage of four plate glass panels.  The claim was assessed by the surveyor and the assessed amount of Rs. 8,218/- was sent to the complainant by way of cheque No. 443817 dated 23.03.2010 of HDFC Bank, which was not accepted by the complainant.  It is submitted that the incident occurred on 06.02.2010 and the contractor of the complainant submitted a final invoice dated 13.03.2010 for Rs. 36,105/- and not for Rs. 65,000/- as alleged.  The averment that an amount of Rs. 52,000/- was spent by the complainant for the alleged damage is false.  The lawyer’s notice dated 01.07.2010 was also duly replied.  There is no cause of action for the complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  Hence complaint may be dismissed.

Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Exts. P1 to P12.  The complainant was examined as PW1.  The opposite parties filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Exts. D1 to D4.  The opposite party Assistant Manager was examined as DW1 and insurance surveyor was examined as DW2.     

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- In this case complainant had taken a householder’s package policy from the opposite parties from 2005 onwards.  An amount of Rs. 10,480/- has been paid as premium every year by complainant for Ext. P1 policy.  On 13.02.2010 the four glass doors with its teak frame got totally damaged and had to be replaced and his contractor submitted Ext. P2 estimate for Rs. 65,000/-.  The same was submitted in the opposite party office.  The opposite parties deputed a surveyor and he filed report.  Accordingly the opposite parties intimated the complainant through Ext. D6 letter that the claim allowed is Rs. 8,218/-.  The complainant did not accept this and sent Ext. P11 notice.  The complainant approached this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 52,000/- with interest along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 15,000/-.  Here the opposite parties filed affidavit stating that the claim was surveyed and the actual loss payable was arrived at Rs. 8,218/- and that amount was sent to the complainant by way of cheque, which was not accepted by the complainant.  In this case there was no commission taken by the complainant to assess the loss.  Ext. P2 is the quotation from complainant to repair the glass door.  Ext. D1 is the surveyor report.  The surveyor was also examined as DW1.  The actual loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs. 32,070/- and after deduction the net loss assessed by him is Rs. 12,280/-.  But again the opposite parties finalized the amount as Rs. 8,218/-.  The surveyor was examined as DW2 and in his deposition he admits that he assessed the loss for Rs. 12,280/- and further states that he was not aware of the amount of Rs. 8,218/- arrived by the insurance company.  On going through the evidence and statement it is clear that the complainant is eligible for Rs. 12,280/- as per the loss assessed by the surveyor.  The opposite parties are bound to pay the amount of Rs. 12,280/- to the complainant.  Hence complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 12,280/- to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of complaint with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 

In the result, complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 12,280/- to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of complaint till payment along with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.  The complainant shall initiate further proceedings to execute the order if the above said amount was not paid by the opposite parties within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28^th day of July 2017.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 74/2012

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Christopher

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of policy schedule

P2     - Copy of estimate dated 18.02.2010

P3     - Copy of letter dated 26.04.2010 sent by complainant to O.P

P4     - Copy of letter dated 24.05.2010 sent by complainant to O.P

P5     - Copy of letter dated 20.05.2010 issued by O.P to complainant

P6     - Copy of letter dated 31.05.2010 issued by O.P to complainant

P7     - Receipt dated 24.05.2010

P8     - Householders package policy schedule

P9     - Premium receipt dated 14.01.2005

P10   - Copy of letter dated 06.06.2010 sent by complainant to O.P

P11   - Copy of advocate notice dated 01.07.2010

P12   - Acknowledgement card and postal receipts

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Alice John

          DW2 - Mohammed Salim

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

          D1     - Survey report dated 25.02.2010

          D2     - Copy of letter dated 22.07.2010 issued by O.P to complainant

          D3     - Copy of reply notice dated 02.08.2010

          D4     - Copy of policy schedule

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb