By Jayasree Kallat, Member:<br /> <br /> The petition is filed by P. Jayakrishnan the owner of the vehicle bearing registeration No.K11-K-4195-Piaggio Autoriksha which met with an accident on 13-2-02. Opposite party is the Insurance company where the complainant had insured his vehicle. The complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for not disbursing the claim amount for the damages sustained to the vehicle on time. Complainant alleges that opposite party has taken undue delay in paying the amount and also opposite party has not paid the actual amount required to repair the vehicle. On receipt of the claim intimation from the complainant opposite party had deputed a Surveyor and Loss assessor to inspect the vehicle and to assess the damages caused to the vehicle. On 19-12-02 surveyor inspected the vehicle and submitted the estimate report before the opposite party. Rs.5000/- towards labour charges and Rs.5619/- towards purchasing of parts ie. a total amount of rs.10619/- was sanctioned. The amount shown by the surveyor was very low and insufficient for the repairing. As the amount shown by the surveyor was very low Friends Motors workshop where the vehicle was kept had intimated the complainant that they are unable to carry out the repairs as the sanctioned amount was very low. On getting the letter from Friends Motors on 20-12-02 complainant intimated opposite party stating the facts and requested to give permission to shift the vehicle from Friends Motors to the authorized dealers of the vehicle Ace Motors, calicut. Opposite party’s representative asked the complainant not to shift the vehicle <br /> <br /> <br /> from Friends Motors and offered the sanction of excess expenditure for the repairs and also agreed to sanction some more parts to be replaced. So the complainant purchased new parts from the authorized dealers Ace Motors. Total expenditure of Rs.22763.68 incurred for repairs. This was informed to the opposite party. After completion of the repair complainant approached the opposite party for the amount. Complainant had approached the opposite party several times. After a long delay, finally on 7-2-03 opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.9400/- only against the total of Rs.22763.68+ Rs.5000/- labour charges. Amount sanctioned was insufficient and too low. Opposite party had rejected the genuine claim unnecessarily. On 20-2-03 complainant issued a Lawyer notice to the opposite party requesting them to give a copy of the surveyor’s report. Opposite party refused to give the surveyor’s report stating the reason that it is confidential. Opposite party had excluded the other claims raised by the complainant as per special exclusion in the policy. According to the complainant actual amount for the repair came to rs.22763.68. Opposite party had sanctioned only Rs.9400/-. Not allowing the full amount by the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence filed this petition claiming balance amount of Rs.13363.68 along with compensation of Rs.5000/-.<br /> <br /> Opposite party filed a version denying all the contentions raised by the complainant. Opposite party admits that the complainant had insured his vehicle with the opposite party but denies all the other averments and allegations made in the complaint. There is no deficiency, negligence in perfection or shortcomings in the service rendered by the opposite party. Opposite party also contends that there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and opposite party. Opposite party admits that the complainant had insured the vehicle with opposite party and also admits the claim intimation dated 17-12-02, and claim form dated 18-12-02 submitted by the complainant before the opposite party claiming compensation for the damages sustained to the vehicle. A surveyor and Loss assessor was deputed to inspect the vehicle and assess the damages. Surveyor had filed a report on 22-1-03. Opposite party raises the contention that the claim made by the complainant includes repair works and replacement of parts due to normal wear and tear, which were not due to the accident. The claim of the complainant also includes painting works and other repair works and replacement of parts, which are excluded as per special exclusions for incorporated in the policy.<br /> <br /> The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.<br /> <br /> PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 to a14 were marked on complainant’s side. RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 to B6 were marked on opposite party’s side.<br /> <br /> The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registeration No.KL-11-K-4195 Piaggio autoriksha. He had taken a comprehensive policy with the opposite party with effect from 18-4-02 to 17-4-03. The vehicle met with an accident on 13-12-02 from Mongam Hill top. Complainant had prepared a claim and submitted before the opposite <br /> <br /> <br /> party on 18-12-02 claiming compensation for the damages sustained to the vehicle. On receipt of the claim form opposite party had appointed a Surveyor and Loss assessor to assess the damages caused to the vehicle. Along with the claim form an estimate for the replacement and repair charges were also submitted before the opposite party Ext.A1 and A2. The damaged vehicle was in the work shop of Friends Motors. The workshop had estimated to replace 22 items and a labour charge of Rs.3340/-. In the surveyor’s report the surveyor denied the replacement of most of the items mentioned in the estimate without mentioning clear reason for the rejection. In the estimate of Friends Motors an amount of Rs.31904.29 is required for replacement of damaged parts. The surveyor’s report rejected six items for the replacement. He sanctioned only an amount of Rs.5619.61. Complainant has produced bills obtained from Ace Motors for the purchase of parts. Items No.1 and 3 in the estimate are rejected for replacement for which complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.9920/- seen in Ext.B5 produced by opposite party. For item No.1 and 3 which cost of Rs.9920/- surveyor had allowed only Rs.3500/- for repairing. Complainant had replaced these items-1 and 3 as they were totally damaged in the accident. Surveyor had not mentioned any reason for not replacing these damaged items. Complainant had claimed labour charges of Rs.3340/- by Ext.A2 for which opposite party has allotted only Rs.1500/-. For this also opposite party has not given any valid reason. A bill of Rs.700/- as towing charge was submitted by the complainant for which the opposite party has allowed only Rs.200/-. According to the surveyor complainant is liable to get Rs.10269.16 including the labour charges. The opposite party has allowed an amount of Rs.9400/-. According to opposite party, opposite party has arrived at this amount looking into the nature of the accident report filed by surveyor, the terms, conditions and exclusions contained in the policy. The company had appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The loss assessor inspected the vehicle and prepared a report Ext.B3 in which he has given the list and the amount recommended by him. The complainant had submitted an estimate of Rs.35324.29 as cost of spare parts, repair charges, labour charges. Surveyor had assessed approximate net loss for an amount of Rs.10269.61. The complainant’s specific case is that the front portion was fully damaged and had to replace most of the parts. But the surveyor has rejected replacement of any of the parts. Opposite party has blindly accepted the report of the surveyor stating that it is the policy of the company the to appoint loss assessor and act accordingly. The surveyor had reported that, items- No.1 and 3 need not be replaced. It can be repaired. In his deposition as RW1 also he has stated that there was no need for replacement of items-1 and 3. He has not explained the reason for not allowing replacement. Ext.B5 produced by opposite party receipt obtained by the complainant from Friends Motors. Ext.B5 shows an amount of Rs.9920/- for the repair of Main frame parts, Rear body for which surveyor had recommended only Rs.3500/-. According to the surveyor he has assessed taking into consideration, policy conditions and exclusion clause including the depreciation. On a perusal of the documents, the bills produced by the complainant and opposite party and taking into consideration the fact that the complainant had taken a comprehensive policy from the opposite party he has been remitting the premium to the opposite party company without any fail, Forum has come to the conclusion that opposite party has allowed the amount recommended by the loss <br /> <br /> <br /> assessor. From the case of the complainant and the documents produced by both complainant and opposite party, Forum has been convinced that heavy damage has occurred to the vehicle. An estimate of Rs.31904.29 was submitted by the complainant to opposite party, opposite party has allowed only Rs.9400/-. Opposite party’s contention is that complainant has signed the policy conditions understanding the rules and regulations and exclusion . However loss assessor has not explained how he has arrived at the amount of Rs.10619 and especially why he has rejected the replacement in items No.1 and 3 in Ext.A2. For which Ext.B5 produced by opposite party shows that an amount of Rs.9920/- as repair charges. Hence forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.9920/- as per Ext.B5. Towards this amount opposite party has allowed Rs.3500/-. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.6420/-.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6420/-. No compensation or cost is allowed.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court this the 16th day of July 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Documents exhibited for the complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Photocopy of letter dt. 18-12-02.<br /> A2. Photocopy of estimate issued by Friends Motors to the complainant.<br /> A3. Photocopy of Towing bill dt. 16-12-02.<br /> A4. Photocopy of letter dt. 19-12-02.<br /> A5. Photocopy of letter dt. 20-12-02.<br /> A6 series (8 in Nos). Photocopy of bills.<br /> A7. Photocopy of bill dt. 24-12-02.<br /> A8 series. Photocopy of bills.<br /> A9. Photocopy of bill dt. 14-1-03.<br /> A10 series. Photocopy of bills.<br /> A11. Copy of registered Lawyer notice dt. 20-2-03.<br /> A12. Reply notice dt. 21-2-03.<br /> A13. Copy of registered Lawyer notice dt. 31-7-03.<br /> A14. Reply notice dt. 4-8-03.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Documents exhibited for the opposite party.<br /> <br /> B1. Receipt dt. 7-2-03.<br /> B2. Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule.<br /> B3. Surveyor’s Report dt. 22-1-03.<br /> B4 series. Photographs.<br /> B5. Letter dt. 15-1-03.<br /> <br /> Witness examined for the complainant:<br /> PW1. P. Jayakrishnan ( Complainant)<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party.<br /> RW1. K.P. Sahajan, Surveyor and Loss Assessor.<br /> <br /> Sd/- President<br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> <br /> (Forwarded/By order)<br /> <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.<br /> <br /> <br />