(1)
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2013
Present: Smt. G.Vasanthakumari,President
Adv.Ravisusha, Member
CC.NO. 350/2009 (FILED ON 26-12-2009)
SRI. ARUN RAJ , S/O A.K. RAJAN,
PANCHAMI, KILIKOLLOOR P.O,
MAGADUE VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
REPRESENTED BY POWER HOLDER
A.K. RAJAN, PANCHAMI, KILIKOLLOOR P.O,
KOLLAM.
(BY ADV. KOTTIYAM N. AJITH KUMAR, KOLLAM ) - COMPLAINANT
V/S
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM -OPPOSITE PARTIES
(BY ADV. DILEEP KUMAR,KOLLAM)
ORDER
SMT.G.VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT
Complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(2)
Complainants case is that he is the owner of the Maruti Wagon R vehicle bearing Reg. NO. KL-02-Z-6006 which was insured with the opposite party for a period commencing from 22-09-2007 to 21-09-2008, that his vehicle met with an accident on 23-01-2008 at Elampalloor and Kundara police has registered Crime No. 81/08 and is pending before JFMC1- Kollam, that he has reported a claim with the opposite party, that the insured value of the vehicle is Rs. 3,04,000/-, that eventhough the complainant approached the opposite party several times to settle the matter opposite party returned him offering paltry amounts, that the vehicle was hypothecated to SBT, Pulamon, Kottarakara for Rs. 3 lakhs, out of which he had paid Rs. 50,000/- that now he has to pay Rs. 3,30,000/- in bank which means because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party he has to pay an excess amount of 75000/- to bank, that since the matter was not settled he was constrained to issue an Advocate notice demanding settlement of claim and a reply received on 28-07-2009 offering Rs.2,03,500/- deducting wreck value Rs.100000/-, that the wreck value will come only Rs. 30000/- and deducting that from the insured amount he is entitled to get the balance, that he has filed a petition before the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Kollam on 14-10-2009 disputing the settlement offered by the opposite party, that the matter was not settled and hence this complaint praying to direct the opposite party to pay insured amount Rs.2,70,000/-, to pay Rs. 75000/-, the interest he has to remit in bank, and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.
(3)
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint as framed is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the opposite party has issued a comprehensive policy to the complainant for his vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL-02-Z-6006 with a sum insured of Rs. 3,04,000/-, that the complainant has reported a claim on 10-03-2008 before the opposite party stating that his vehicle met with an accident on 23-01-2008 at 9.30 p.m at Elampalloor in Kollam- Shenkotta National Highway, that this complainant has not given an opportunity for conducting spot survey by the opposite party before shifting the vehicle from the place of occurrence due to the inordinate delay in reporting the accident, that the opposite party issued a claim form with a request to retransmit the same duly filled and signed along with the estimate from the repairer, that the complainant accordingly submitted the estimate from the repairer M/s. Indus Motors Pvt Ltd, Karicode amounting to Rs. 4,67,213.06 against the insured declared value of Rs. 3,04,000/- that the opposite party immediately on receipt of the above claim form and estimate from the repairer had appointed a Government of India licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor M/s S.P. Engineers and surveyors for inspecting the vehicle and for assessing the extent of damages sustained , that the surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle in detail and had discussion with the repairer M/s Indus Motors Pvt. Ltd Karicode on 18-03-2008 and on 20-04-2008, that the surveyor after detailed examination of the damaged vehicle had submitted
(4)
his report before the opposite party, that as per the report submitted by the surveyor, he has recommended to settle the claim on salvage loss basis to a sum of Rs. 2,03,500/-by retaining the damaged vehicle (wreck) with the insured complainant at his risk, that in the report submitted by the opposite party, he had suggested four modes of assessment and recommended settlement on salvage loss basis since the complainant objected settlement of the claim on repair basis, that the surveyor had obtained quotations from the wreck buyers for the damaged vehicle and among the quotations, the highest quotation received by him is for Rs. 1,00,000/- which has been accepted by the surveyor for settling the claim on salvage loss basis, that the surveyor thereafter sent a letter to the complainant on 30-06-2008 requesting the complainant to produce the vehicle documents such as RC Book, driving license etc. for verification, but the complainant instead of furnishing the above documents had sent a legal notice to the opposite party demanding settlement of claim as total loss, that the opposite party thereafter sent a reply letter to the complainants counsel informing the decision to settle the claim on salvage loss basis, but the complainant was not ready to settle the claim as informed by the opposite party and filed a petition before the District Legal Service Authority disputing the settlement offered by the opposite party, that he has subsequently withdraw the above complaint and filed the present complaint before this Forum.
(5)
From the side of the complainant, power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as Pw1 and marked Exbts P1 to P6. From the side of this opposite party the surveyor in this case was examined as Dw1 and marked Exbts D1 to D6.
The points that would arise for consideration are:-
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
(2) Reliefs and costs?
The Points:- The crucial question to be considered in this case is whether the assessment of loss made by the licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor is statutorily acceptable or not in deciding the actual loss sustained to the complainant for his vehicle and whether there is any inordinate delay occurred on the part of the opposite party in offering terms of settlement. There is no dispute regarding the policy period and insured value. Admittedly the complainant in this case has produced an estimate from a repairer namely M/s. Indus Motors Pvt. Ltd, Kollam in which the repairer has given an estimate for repairing the vehicle and since the complainant was not ready to settle the claim on repair basis the surveyor has assessed the damage sustained to the vehicle on salvage loss basis. Ext.D4 is the True photocopy of the Motor survey report dated 31.03.2009 . In Ext.D4 he had given four modes of settlement and among them, he has recommended to settle the claim on salvage loss basis which is the more feasible method of settlement according to the opposite party.
(6)
Ext.D2 is registered letter dated 30.06.08 issued by surveyor to the complainant. After obtaining quotations from wreck buyers requesting the complainant to produce the vehicle documents such as RC and DL in original for verification for settling the claim on salvage loss basis. Admittedly those documents not produced before the surveyor and the complainant issued Ext.P4 legal notice to the opposite party demanding settlement of the claim on total loss basis claiming the entire sum insured amount given in the policy.
As we have already mentioned the surveyor in his report recommended to settle the claim on salvage loss basis by retaining the damaged vehicle by the complainant himself and since the complainant was not ready to settle the claim on that line the surveyor considered the value of the damaged vehicle to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the basis of the quotation received by him from the wreck buyers and after deducting the same along with Rs. 500/- towards the policy excess from the insured amount of Rs. 3,04,000/- arrived the net amount payable to the issued to a sum of Rs.2,03,500/- towards salvage loss settlement for which he was not amenable. For the legal notice Ext. P4 the opposite party insured Ext.D5 requesting complainants counsel to produce the original insurance policy, and consent letter from the complainant to settle the claim on salvage loss basis to a sum of Rs. 2,03,500/-. But instead of complying the same the complainant taken up the matter before the District Legal services Authority and after withdrawing that this complaint filed on
(7)
26.12.09. On going through the argument notes put in by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant we can see that now they are ready to receive Rs. 2,03,500/- in settlement of the claim provided compensation is to get for inordinate delay.
Now let us examine whether there is inordinate delay caused in processing the claim. Ext.P3 FIR would go to show that the alleged accident occurred on 23-01-2008. Ext.D1 motor claim form would go to show that the complainant has reported a claim with the opposite party on 10.03.08. Admittedly it is a delayed claim. But the opposite party soon after receipt of claim appointed Dw1 as the insurance surveyor and Ext-D2 dated 30.06.08 issued by the surveyor to the complainant would go to show that the surveyor requested the complainant to produce the vehicle documents such as RC Book and DL for verification. In that letter it is categorically stated that “ if you are not interested to repair the vehicle, please make it convenient to call on us to discuss and finalise the matter for any other mode of settlement”. But instead of complying Ext.D1 the complainant caused to issue Ext. P4 legal notice demanding settlement of claim as total loss. Ext. P5 and D5 dated 27-07-09 are one and the same reply issued by opposite party informing the decision to settle the claim on salvage loss basis. But complainant was not ready to settle the claim as informed by the opposite party and taken up the matter to the District legal services authority and after withdrawing the same this complaint. After keeping away from settling the matter on salvage loss basis
(8)
now they are ready to settle the matter on salvage loss basis receiving Rs. 2,03,500/-. Taking the evidence as a whole we can see that there is no delay on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim and it is the complainant who evaded from settling the matter on salvage loss basis and not entitled to get any compensation. By producing the original D/L, Insurance policy, and consent letter of the insured the complainant can very well receive Rs. 2,03,500/- which he is entitled from the opposite party in settlement of the claim.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. In the circumstances of this case there is no order as to costs.
G. VASANTHAKUMARI –Sd/- Adv.RAVI SUSHA-Sd/-
Forwarded by order
Senior Superintendent
Witness of the complainant
PW1- Sri. A.K. Rajan
Evidence of the complainant
Ext. P1- R.C. Book
Ext.P2- Policy Certificate
Ext.P3- FIR
Ext.P4- Advocate Notice
(9)
Ext. P5- Reply notice
Ext.P6- Power of Attorney
Witness of the opposite party
Dw1- Sri. Sivan Pillai
Evidence of the opposite party
D1- Motor Claim Form
D2- Advocate letter dated 30.06.2008
D3- Copy of Postal Card
D4- Motor Survey Report
D5- Advocate letter dated 27/07/2009
D6- Certificate of Insurance
+
DRAFT ORDER
CC/350/2009
DATED.22-02-2013
