BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 409/2003 Filed on 15.10.2003
Dated : 15.03.2011
Complainant:
Lloyd M. Thomas, Mangalasseril, T.C 27/2036, Chirakulam Road, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)
Opposite party :
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., represented by the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. II, St. Mary Villa, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.
(By adv. V. Manikantan Nair)
This case was taken for orders on 16.11.2009. Since the case bundle got misplaced and traced only on 05.03.2011, the order could not be pronounced on that date. This O.P having been heard on 05.03.2011, the Forum on 15.03.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is the owner of Hero Honda CBZ (D) Motor cycle bearing Register No. KL-01 W 1124. The vehicle is insured with Oriental Insurance Company under two wheeler package policy No. 442300/2003/16159 dated 18.11.2002 for a total value of Rs. 43,000/-. An amount of Rs. 978/- was paid towards annual premiums as per Receipt No. 10/1562100. On 30.03.2003 at about 6 pm the vehicle was involved in an accident near Bakery Junction and was damaged. The matter was reported to the opposite party/insurance company and the vehicle is entrusted with Cheran Motors, Cape Road, Kaimanam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram a workshop approved by the opposite party. The surveyor authorized by the company inspected the vehicle on 31.03.2003 and found the estimate of the cost of repair including replacement of the parts damaged is just and reasonable. The complainant has complied with all the requirements as a policy holder. As per the estimate the cost of repair amounts to Rs. 9,338.98 including labour charges. The opposite party has not so far given clearance for the payment to the workshop for the said amount and it remains unpaid. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The date and manner of accident are absolutely false and therefore denied. The averment that the surveyor authorized by the opposite party found the estimate of the cost of repair including replacement of the parts damaged is just and reasonable are absolutely false and hence denied. On receipt of information of accident, the opposite party deputed an independent and duly qualified insurance surveyor and loss assessor. He conducted a detailed survey in the presence of the repairers and the surveyor had discussed and negotiated with the said repairers. The repairers of the complainant was fully satisfied with the manner, mode and method of assessment of the loss and the survey conducted by the surveyor. The complainant's repairers submitted an estimate of 8 items for an amount of Rs. 9,338.98 and labour charges of Rs. 320/-. After inspection of the vehicle at the authorized workshop, the surveyor allowed four items, (i) Fender, front, (ii) Guard, front (iii) Shroud set L(C.B. RED) and (iv) Pipe steering handle. Apart from the above items, the surveyor sanctioned Rs. 175/- as labour charge. This is unequivocally accepted by the repairers of the complainant on 02.04.2003. After depreciation, the surveyor assessed and estimated the loss to the tune of Rs. 889.15. The opposite party has never repudiated the claim, but ready to pay Rs. 889.15, the actual loss sustained. As a public institution, this opposite party is not in a position to settle claims other than the actual and genuine claims. This opposite party has neither committed any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice. The opposite party is not bound to pay any amount other than the actual loss assessed by the approved surveyor. The complainant is not entitled to any relief sought in the complaint.
Complainant as PW1 has filed his affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P7 on his part. DW1 has been examined on behalf of opposite party and Exts. D1 to D4 were marked.
The points to be ascertained are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
Points (i) & (ii):- There is no dispute regarding the policy. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has violated the policy conditions since the opposite party has not settled the claim as per the estimate given by the authorized workshop and approved by the surveyor. The complainant has stated the date of accident as 30.03.2003 at 6 p.m, but in the claim form which has been marked as Ext. D1 the date and time of accident has been mentioned as 29.03.2003 at 6.30 pm. Though the opposite party has objected the date and manner of accident in their version the accident as pleaded in the complaint is not disputed. As per Ext. D1 claim form the estimated cost of repairs has been mentioned as Rs. 9,338/- by the complainant and the complainant has pleaded that the opposite party has wilfully and illegally repudiated his above mentioned claim without any sufficient reason. The opposite party has contended that they have never repudiated the claim of the complainant and further contended that the repairers expressly agreed to the assessment made out by the surveyors and the same was duly recorded in the estimate issued by the repairers by acknowledging those parts which have been allowed by a tick mark and those which have been disallowed by a X mark. Ext. D2 is the document evidencing the same. But according to the complainant the surveyor had inspected the vehicle and found the estimate including the replacement of the parts damaged as just and reasonable. As per the estimate the cost of repair amounts to Rs. 9,338.98 including labour charges and on the basis of the said inspection of the said surveyor of the opposite party the complainant had entrusted the vehicle with Cheran Motors for repairs. So the aspect to be considered is what is the amount the complainant is entitled to. As per Ext. P6 the Cheran Automobiles has issued a no objection certificate to the insurance company informing their no objection in making direct payment to the complainant an amount of Rs. 6,765.25. The complainant has furnished Ext. P2 detailing the estimate of Cheran Automobiles wherein the total has been mentioned as Rs. 9,338. The description of the damages are also mentioned in Ext. P2. But as per the surveyor's report which has been marked as Ext. D3 it could be seen that details of damages to the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-01 W 1124 have been mentioned as (1) Guard ft : Bent, (2) Pipe steering handle : Bent/distorted, (3) Fender ft : Broken, (4) Shroud Set L-Red: Broken, (5) Rim ft. wheel : Intact, (6) Disc ft brake : Intact, (7) Fork assy : RH ft : Intact, and (8) Cow set ft. CBZ : Intact. So as per Ext. D3 since there is no damage to Rim ft wheel, Disc ft brake and Fork assy R ft. the estimate for the same has been disallowed. Further the cowl set ft CBZ also has been disallowed by the surveyor and he has arrived at a net liability of Rs. 889.15. The opposite party has contended that the surveyor had allowed only those parts which could have been damaged in the event of an accident of the nature as projected by the complainant. It is a settled proposition of law that surveyor's report is an important piece of document. The complainant has failed to bring any record to rebut the finding and conclusions reached by the surveyor. From the above discussions, we find that the complainant is entitled for the amount assessed by the surveyor. Hence we find there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to accept the amount assessed by the surveyor.
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 15th day of March 2011.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 409/2003
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Lloyd M. Thomas
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Certificate-cum-policy schedule
P2 - Copy of estimate.
P3 - Copy of Bill No. 100 dated 04.04.2003.
P4 - Copy of cash bill dated 06.05.2003.
P5 - Copy of workshop bill No. 94 dated 06.05.2003
P6 - Copy of No Objection Certificate issued on 06.05.2003
P7 - Copy of letter dated 29.10.2003.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
DW1 - K. S. Satheesh Kumar.
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Motor Claim Form.
D2 - Estimate dated 31.03.2003
D3 - Motor Survey Report.
D4 - Advocate notice dated 07.06.2003.
PRESIDENT
jb
