CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member. CC.No.185/08 Tuesday, the day of 30th, December, 2009.
Petitioner. M.M.Joseph Manjakkal house Cheruvallykkra village Kavumbhagam.P.O. Kanjirappally Taluk. (Adv.K.K.Venugopakumar) Vs. Opposite parties. 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Mattithara buildings Kottayam. Rep. By its Manager (Divisional Manager). 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Kanjirappally Cheeranvelil buildings rep. By its Branch Manager. (Adv.Sajan A.Varghese) 3. 'EROS' Agencies, Ponkunnam Near Service Co-operative Bank Ponkunnam. Rep. By its, Manager. (Adv.K.S.Vinodkumar)
O R D E R Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas, Member.
The complainant's case is as follows.
The complainant had taken full coverage insurance policy vide policy No.441305/229/2008 for the bajaj platina bike bearing Reg. No. KL/34-3250 from the second opposite party for a period from 3-4-2007 to 2-4-2008. The said bike met with an accident on 15-10-2007 at 4p.m. and was destroyed completely. The valuator of the third opposite party prepared an estimate on the loss sustained by the bike and as per the -2- said estimate Rs.25,618/- was needed for making the vehicle roadworthy. Along with the said estimate and other records the complainant submitted claim form to the second opposite party on 19-12-2007. The Manager and valuation officer of the second opposite party inspected the vehicle and understood that Rs.25,618/- was necessary for the repairing works. The second opposite party prepared a mahazar and took photograph of the vehicle. The third opposite party completed the repairing works, but as the second opposite party has not given the claim amount the vehicle is still with the third opposite party. The complainant alleged that the above said act of first and second opposite parties is a case of deficiency in service. According to the complainant the second opposite party is liable to pay the estimated amount of Rs.25,618/- and the transportation expense Rs.300/- to the complainant. The act of second opposite party is not allowing the insurance claim forced the complainant to file this complaint. The complainant prayed to direct the first and second opposite parties to pay complainant the estimated sum of Rs.25,168/- and transportation expenses Rs.300/- and compensation Rs.5000/- and litigation cost to him. The first and second opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. (i) The claim of the complainant was duly processed by the first and second opposite parties and the amount payable in accordance with the norms and conditions of the policy is arrived at. (ii)After detailed enquiry and investigation of the claim and based on the survey report and assessment the first and second opposite parties agreed to pay Rs.17,750/- to the repairer towards the repairing charges inclusive of cost of spare parts. (iii)The details of such offer was intimated to the complainant on 18-6-2005. A satisfaction voucher was also enclosed with the said communication requesting the complainant and the repairer -3- to sign with seal with a Rs.1/- revenue stamp affixed and to send it back to the first and second opposite parties. (iv) The complainant and the repairer has not given the voucher duly discharged nor has the complainant enquired about the claim made by him to the first and second opposite parties.
(v)There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of first and second opposite parties.
Hence the first and second opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them. The third opposite party entered appearance and filed version separately with following main points. (i)The third opposite party has not sent any valuator for assessing the damage sustained to the vehicle. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of third opposite party by the complainant and an estimate was prepared. (ii) The complainant agreed and entrusted the vehicle for repairing to the third opposite party for the said estimated amount.
(iii)The repairing works of the vehicle was completed on 10-1-2008 and informed the complainant but the complainant has neither taken the delivery of the vehicle nor paid bill so far. (iv) The alleged non-payment of the insurance claim is a dispute between complainant and first and second opposite parties and the third opposite party has no role in the said issue.
-4- Hence the third opposite party claimed compensatory cost. Point No.1. Heard the counsels for both sides and perused the documents. The first and second opposite parties produced a copy of the letter issued by them to the complainant dated 18/6/08 and it is marked as exhibit B1. On scanning exhibit B1, it is understood that the first and second opposite parties had informed the complainant and the third opposite party about the settlement of the claim for Rs.17,750/- in favour of the third opposite parties. The petitioner has not denied anywhere about the receipt of the abovesaid letter. Exhibit B1 proves that it was sent to the complainant before the date of filing of the complaint ie. 14/7/08. Inspite of the receipt of the aforesaid letter the petitioner wrongly alleged that the first and second opposite parties had not taken any steps for settling the claim. From exhibit B1, it is also clear that the first and second opposite parties had enclosed a satisfaction voucher along with exhibit B1. If the claim settlement for Rs.17,750/- was not satisfactory for the complainant he could have either sent the satisfaction voucher back after recording his protest or could have filed an objection before the first and second opposite parties. But no scrap of paper is seen on record showing his dissatisfaction and protest over the claim settlement made by the first and second opposite parties. Furthermore nothing is placed on record to substantiate the petitioner's contention that the first and second opposite parties are liable to pay the entire estimated amount of Rs.25,618/- prepared by the third opposite party. As the repairing work was completed by the third opposite party and the claim was settled for Rs.17,750/- by the first and second opposite parties, we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of first, second and third opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly. Point no.2. In view of the findings in point No.1, the petition is ordered as follows. The petition is dismissed. Both the parties will bear their costs.
-5- Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Sri.K.N.Radhkrishnan Member. Sd/-
APPENDIX Documents of the petitioner. Ext.A1 Copy of policy certificate Ext.A2 Copy of FIR Ext.A3 Copy of the estimate. Ext.A4 Copy of Motor claim form Ext.A5 Copy of advocate's notice.
Documents of the opposite party. Ext.B1 Copy of letter dated 18/6/2008.
By Orders,
Senior Superintendent. Kgr/5 copies.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
