IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.137/09 (Filed on 20.10.2009)Between: Varghese Titus, Mannil House, Maramon.P.O., Now residing at: Mannil House, Kuriyannoor.P.O. (By Adv. P. Hariharan Nair) ..... Complainant And: 1. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Navaneetha Building, Mukkada, Kundara – 691 501. 2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. P.D. Varghese) ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant is the owner of the Hyundai 1 10 Car bearing Reg.No.KL-27-9441. 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the Branch Managers of United India Insurance Company. Complainant insured the vehicle with 1st opposite party and paid an amount of ` 11,898 as premium and they issued policy valid from 9.9.2008 to 8.9.2009. At the time of taking policy the 1st opposite party assured that if any damage caused during the use of vehicle insurance company will indemnify the insured. 3. On 21.2.09 complainant’s vehicle met with an accident and sustained major damages. He informed the accident to 1st opposite party and with their consent the vehicle was sent to Popular Hyundai Workshop at Kottayam. The complainant filed claim form along with estimate to 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party’s surveyor surveyed the vehicle twice. Total ` 1,25,346 was spent for repairing the damages. The complainant submitted all relevant records to 1st opposite party for the reimbursement of amount spent for the repair of the vehicle. But no response from the side of 1st opposite party on 3.7.09 the complainant sent a legal notice to 1st opposite party for payment of ` 1,25,346. After the receipt of legal notice on 6.7.09 the 1st opposite party sent a reply notice to produce cash receipt of payment for repair of the damaged vehicle. On 30.7.09 complainant sent cash receipt. Then on 3.8.09, 1st opposite party sent a discharge voucher for ` 45,500 and requested to return the voucher duly stamped and signed. The complainant sent the voucher but after receipt of the voucher 1st opposite party not paid any amount. The complainant spent total ` 1,25,346 towards repair of the vehicle. Accident occurred within 6 months of its purchase. Therefore the insurance company is liable to repay the amount spent for repair. The complainant taken policy for getting insurance benefit but insurance company not yet given any insurance benefit. Being the insurer of the vehicle, the company is liable is pay entire repair charges, but they have failed to pay it. Hence this complaint for getting the repairing charges of ` 1,25,346 with compensation and cost. 4. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. But they admit the accident and the validity of insurance policy. They denied that they had not assured to indemnify any damages caused to the vehicle. The opposite parties are duty bound to satisfy the claims only as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the policy. 5. According to opposite parties an own damage claim was received regarding the accident occurred on 21.2.09. Opposite parties deputed a surveyor for conducting survey of the damaged vehicle. The surveyor had filed a report. As per report an amount of ` 45,485 is to be paid as damages to the vehicle. Opposite parties had issued a discharge voucher for ` 45,500 to be signed by the complainant as full satisfaction and discharge of the claims but the complainant did not do so. Hence the 1st opposite party could not make the payment. The 1st opposite party is ready and willing to pay the amount of ` 45,500 after obtaining the discharge voucher and required documents. 6. According to opposite parties, the claim put forward by the complainant is high. The spare parts and labour charges calculated is also on the higher side. After considering these aspects the surveyor has correctly assessed the damages as ` 45,485. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount in excess of the surveyor’s assessment from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are entitled to deduct 50% on non-metallic parts as per the conditions in the policy. The complaint is premature. The opposite parties so far did not repudiate the claim. The opposite parties are ready and willing to pay the amount of ` 45,500. The complainant has no cause of action to prefer this complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. 7. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Relief and Cost? 8. Evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A11. 9. Evidence of the opposite parties consists of the oral evidence adduced by the approved surveyor along with certain documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard. 10. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A11. Ext.A1 is the copy of policy certificate issued by opposite parties. Ext.A2, A2(a) and A2(b) are the repair bills of ` 1,25,346 issued from Popular Hyundai Workshop, Kottayam. Ext.A3 is the copy of legal notice dated 3.7.09 to 1st opposite party. Ext.A3(a) is the postal receipt and Ext.A3(b) is the acknowledgment card. Ext.A4 is the reply notice of Ext.A3. Ext.A5 is the copy of covering letter to 1st opposite party. Ext.A5(a) is the copy of cash receipt from Popular Hyundai. Ext.A5(b) is the postal receipt of Ext.A5. Ext.A5(c) is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A5. Ext.A6 is the copy of discharge voucher for ` 45,500 issued by 1st opposite party. Ext.A7 is the copy of covering letter to 1st opposite party dated 14.9.09. Ext.A7(a) is the discharge voucher. Ext.A7(b) is the postal receipt of Ext.A7. Ext.A7(c) is the acknowledgment card. Ext.A8 is the insurance certificate issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A9 is the private car package policy issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ext.A10 is the retail invoice bill issued by MGF Motors Ltd. Ext.A11 is the copies of claim form and estimates submitted to 1st opposite party. 11. In order to prove the opposite parties’ contention, opposite parties approved surveyor adduced oral evidence along with two documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the Motor Final Survey Report of insurance surveyor. Ext.B2 is the bill check report. 12. Complainant’s case is that his vehicle was insured with opposite parties, though an accident occurred and incurred a repairing charge of ` 1,25,346 the same has not reimburse by the opposite parties. Opposite parties contention is that complainant put forward exorbitant claim. He is entitled to get only ` 45,485 as damages as per surveyor’s assessment. They are ready and willing to pay the said amount. 13. On a perusal of Ext.A2 series, it is learned that complainant has paid the repairing charges of ` 1,25,345 to Popular Hyundai. Ext.A9 is the private package policy issued by opposite parties. As per Ext.A1, it is evident that complainant filed claim form along with estimate of the vehicle. Ext.B1 is the motor final survey report showing Ext.A2 amount and surveyors assessed amount of ` 42,013.36. Ext.B2 is the bill check report of ` 45,485. 14. It is seen that as per Ext.A9, 50% depreciation is allowed to deduct for all Rubber/Nylone/Plastic parts, tyres and tubes, batteries and air bags. 30% is allowable for fiber glass components. For all parts made of glass no provision for depreciation. If the age of the vehicle is less than 6 month no provision for deduction of depreciation in wooden parts. If the age of the vehicle is not exceeding 6 months, the percentage of depreciation for fixing IDV is 5% only. Evidence on record shows that the age of complainant’s vehicle at the time of accident was less than 6 months. 15. It is pertinent to note that the price of the vehicle as per Ext.A10 is ` 2,45,276. The insurers declared value of the vehicle is `4,10,285 and the premium amount paid by the complainant is ` 11,898. There is no specific guidelines in Ext.A9 with regard to the labour charges. Complainant claimed ` 1,25,346. But opposite parties allowed only `45,485 as per Ext.B1 and B2. The parts price stated in Ext.A2 has not fully allowed in Ext.B1. But opposite parties would not have produced either labour charge rates or price chart of parts to support the estimates in Ext.B1 and B2. There also seen omission of certain parts and price in Ext.B2. More over surveyor has not prepared the list of Rubber, Nylon, Iron, wooden or glass parts. As per Ext.A9, the percentage of depreciation in replaced parts varies depend on the said Rubber, Nylon etc. parts. It is evident in DW1’s deposition which is as follows:- “Condition {]Imcw fiber components-\v 30% depreciation BWv ]dªncn¡p¶Xv. Rubber, Nylon XpS§nb part-\v 50% depreciation BWv ]dªncn¡p¶Xv. FiberþDw plastic-Dw IeÀ¶ an{inX¯nepÅ components-\v depreciation conditionþ ]dbp¶nÓ. 16. On a perusal of Ext.B1 and B2 it is learned that the assessed amount is calculated by deducting 50% depreciation from the bill amount. Ext.B1 and B2 do not disclosed the basis of deduction. Therefore, we cannot come to a conclusion that whether Ext.B1 and B2 deduction is in conformity with Ext.A9 guidelines. 17. From the overall fact and circumstances of the case, we come to the view that the object of the insurance policy is not to deprive the bonafide insurer but to accommodate the insured so that the insured got just and reasonable dues. In this case, the opposite parties attitude of non-payment of his actual claim is unjust, irrational and against the accepted norms of settled laws. It is a clear deficiency of service also. Therefore complaint is maintainable and is allowable with compensation and cost. 18. In the result, complaint is partly allowed as follows:- (1) Opposite parties are directed to categorize each parts listed in Ext.A2 as parts made of rubber, wood, iron etc. and deduct depreciation if any as per the guidelines in Ext.A9 and pay the amount as arrived on the said categorization to the complainant. (2) Complainant is allowed to realise ` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and a cost of ` 3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) from the opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the amount entitled to the complainant with the said compensation and cost with 10% interest per annum from this date, till the realisation of the whole amount. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of March, 2011. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Varghese Titus Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of policy certificate issued by opposite parties. A2 series : Repair bills of ` 1,25,346 issued by Popular Hyundai Workshop, Kottayam to the complainant. A3 : Copy of advocate notice dated 3.7.09 sent by the complainant to 1st opposite party. A3(a) : Postal receipt of Ext.A3. A3(b) : Acknowledgment card. A4 : Reply notice dated 6.7.09 sent by 1st opposite party to the complainant. A5 : Photocopy of letter dated 3.7.09 sent by the complainant to 1st opposite party. A5(a) : Photocopy of cash receipt dated 2.5.09 for ` 1,25,346. A5(b) : Postal receipt of Ext.A5. A5(c) : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A5. A6 : Photocopy of discharge voucher for ` 45,500 issued by 1st opposite party. A7 : Copy of covering letter dated 14.9.09 sent by the complainant to 1st opposite party. A7(a) : Photocopy of discharge voucher. A7(b) : Postal receipt of Ext.A7. A7(c) : Acknowledgment card. A8 : Insurance Policy Certificate issued by the 1st opposite party. A9 : Private Car Package Policy issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd. A10 : Retail invoice bill issued by MGF Motors Ltd. A11 : Photocopies of claim form and estimates submitted to 1st opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Anshath Hussain Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Motor Final Survey Report of insurance surveyor. B2 : Bill Check Report. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to: (1) Varghese Titus, Mannil House, Kuriyannoor.P.O. (2) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Navaneetha Building, Mukkada, Kundara – 691 501. (3) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch, Pathanamthitta. (4) The stock file. | 
