Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/23/2012

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHARLES - Opp.Party(s)

M.B. GOPALAN

13 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                        Present: Thiru J. Jayaram,                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                      Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                           MEMBER

F.A. No. 23 / 2012

                         (Against the Order in C.C. No. 90 / 2010, dated 12-09-2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai [North])

Dated this the  13^th day of OCTOBER, 2015

  1. Bajaj Allianz                                             ]

    General Insurance Co. Ltd, No.25/26,        ]

    IV Floor, Prince Towers,                           ]

    College Road,                                          ]

    Chennai – 600 006                                   ]

                                                                  ]                           

2. The Manager,                                           ]

    Bajaj Allianz                                             ]

    General Insurance Co. Ltd, No.25/26,        ]

    IV Floor, Prince Towers,                           ]  ..  Appellants /

    College Road,                                          ]             Opposite Parties

    Chennai – 600 006                                   ]

                   Vs.

Charles,                                                       ]

S/o Louis,                                                    ]

No.55, ‘C’ Block,                                          ]

Navalar Nagar,                                             ]

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005,                       ]  ..  Respondent /

Authorized Power Agent: S. Jeeva                ]                  Complainant

  

              This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 17-08-2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Appellants:             -        M/s M.B. Gopalan

Counsel for Respondent:  -        Mr. L. Charles

J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

             This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Chennai [North] in C.C. No. 90 / 2010, dated      12-09-2011, allowing the complaint.

                The case of the complainant is that his Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. TN07 – AR 3568, insured with the opposite parties, met with an accident on 19-06-2009 when the policy was in force, causing heavy damages to the vehicle. The complainant took the vehicle to M/s VST Service Station, Vellore which is an approved automobile workshop for Tata vehicles. The Manager gave an estimate of the damages for Rs.1,98,000/- as total cost of repairing of the vehicle. The accident was intimated to the insurance company / opposite parties. The Insurance Surveyor inspected the vehicle, but no communication was ever received from the opposite parties. The complainant waited for several months for the response from the opposite parties. At last, the complainant received a message from the opposite parties stating that the claim would be settled as assessed by the Surveyor at Rs.71,856/-. The opposite parties are liable to reimburse the entire repair cost of Rs.1,98,000/-. The failure to settle the claim in full, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

2.       According to the opposite parties, they are not liable to pay the entire estimated amount of Rs.1,98,000/-, and that they have assessed the damages at Rs.71,856/- as per the Surveyor’s Assessment Report. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,91,989/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 19-08-2009, i.e. from the date of invoice issued by VST Service Station. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred the appeal.

4.       It is pertinent to note that the quantum of compensation alone is in dispute. A number of citations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission have been submitted on the side of the complainant were respectfully considered and adhered. A citation of the State Commission has been submitted on the side of the appellants / opposite parties.

5.       The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,91,989/- on the strength of Ex.A2 and A3. Ex.A2 is the copy of estimate of damages issued by VST Service Station, and Ex.A3 is the copy of the invoice issued by VST Service Centre. We have to note that the above said VST Service Station is an authorized service centre for Tata vehicles. The complainant’s vehicle involved in the accident is Tata Sumo car, and Ex.A2 and A3 have been issued by VST Service Station, Vellore, which is the approved service centre for Tata vehicles. Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are not challenged by the opposite parties. We find no reason for not accepting the estimate and the invoice Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 issued by the VST Service Station.

6.       We have to further note that the opposite parties have taken 4 months to come out with an offer of Rs.71,856/- to settle the claim. In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong on the part of the complainant to obtain estimate and repair the vehicle with the authorized service centre of Tata vehicles.

7.       It is to be further noted that in the Surveyor’s Report Ex.B2, we find that the Engine Assembly, Engine Block, the Engine Crank shaft and the connecting rods and the engine bed, Chassis Assembly, etc. have been severely damaged. A meagre compensation of Rs.71,856/- is not the reasonable compensation and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we have to accept Ex.A2 and A3.  Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to payment of Rs.1,91,989/- based on Ex.A3.

8.       The District Forum has rightly concluded that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim in full by the opposite parties, and the District Forum has passed an order directing the opposite parties 1&2 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,91,989/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of Ex.A3, i.e. from 19-08-2009 and has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

9.       We feel that the award of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony is on the higher side. We are inclined to reduce the compensation for mental agony to Rs.10,000/- and the order of the District Forum has to be modified accordingly; otherwise there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

10.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation for mental agony to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) instead of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the District Forum, and confirming the rest of the order. No order as to costs in the appeal.

                TMT.  P. BAKIYAVATHI                      J. JAYARAM         

           MEMBER                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER