BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 23rd day of December 2017
Filed on : 21-01-2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.32/2017
Between
Aravind S. Menon, : Complainant
S/o. N. G Satyapalan, (By Adv. Awin Gopakumar,
1364 D Parameshwara, 36/117A, Kotecanal Junction,
A. V John Allungal road, Lisie Hospital road, Cochin-18)
Kadavanthra, Cochin-682 020.
And
1. Cholamandalam MS General : Opposite parties
Insurance Company Ltd., (1st and 2nd O.P. By Adv. Jacob
2nd Floor, ACEL Estate Mathew P., Mathews Jacob Associa-
No. 40/856, Iyyattil Junction, tes 61-HB, Panampilly Nagar,
Chittoor road, Cochin-682 011, Kochi-36)
rep. by its Branch Manager.
2. Krishna Kumar,
Cholamandalam MS Capital
General Insurance Company
Ltd., 2nd floor, ACEL Estate
No. 40/856, Iyyattil Junction,
Chittoor road, Cochin-682 011.
3. Rajasree Automotive P. Ltd.,
SFNO 111/3, Nanjanapuram
Village, Perundurai road,
Thindal Post, Erode-638 009,
Rep. by its Managing Director.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant purchased a private car policy package from the opposite party Insurance company on 06-07-2016, for his Ford Fiesta car bearing Reg. No KL 07 BR 6183, on payment of Rs. 8,016/- towards premium. The policy was covering a period of one year from 06-07-2016 to 05-07-2017. However, the policy document issued to the complainant was delayed by the opposite party. On 19-10-2016, the vehicle had an accident in Tamil Nadu at Thiruchirapilly. The service centre of the 3rd opposite party at Erode estimated a repair expenses of Rs. 2,49,540/-. The complainant requested the 1st opposite party to release the claim amount. However on 21-10-2016 the opposite party, insurance company intimated the complainant that he is not eligible for the claim since a claim which had already been availed from the previous insurance company was suppressed by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party was in-charge of filling the forms for the insurance policies and the liability for non-disclosure of those facts have to be attributed to the 2nd opposite party, to whom the complainant had disclose the entire facts fruitfully. The opposite party did not consider the e-mail communications sent by the complainant. The complainant was informed by the 2nd opposite party that there was a typographical error in the insurance policy committed by the 2nd opposite party and instructed by the complainant to make a payment of additional amount of Rs. 1,367/- for reprocessing the policy claim. Now the 3rd opposite party has been insisting the complainant to make the payment and to collect the repaired vehicle on payment of the bill. The complainant is put to hardship due to the negligence and deficiency of the 2nd opposite party and therefore the complainant seeks a direction to be given to the 1st opposite party to process and sanction the insurance claim and to release the amount of Rs. 2,49,540/- in order to release the vehicle by the 3rd opposite party. Complainant also seeks compensation and costs.
3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing their respective versions.
4. The opposite parties in their versions admitted the issuance of a policy but denied their liability to pay the amount taking into account of the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions in the policy. The complainant had approached the 1st opposite party and mislead the opposite parties stating that there was no previous claim. The comprehensive policy was given to the complainant at the lowest rate in the market on the basis of the misrepresentation of the complainant that there was no previous claim. The complainant himself had signed the proposal form and availed 20% no claim bonus on the basis of disclosure that there was no previous claim on the vehicle. The complainant had deliberately suppressed material facts in order to get the policy at the lowest price. There was no delay in issuing the policy. The estimate produced by the complainant is exaggerated . The 2nd opposite party did not admit that there was a typological error in his part . He also did not advice the complainant to pay an additional premium to process the claim. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.
5. The 3rd opposite party submitted a version contending that they had repaired the vehicle completely by 17-08-2017 and complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on 22-03-2017 with full satisfaction by signing the satisfaction note. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party.
6. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency
in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 as alleged?
ii. Relies and costs
7. The evidence in this case consists of Exbts. A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant and Exbt. B1 to B4 on the side of the opposite parties. No oral evidence was adduced by either parties.
8. Issue No. i. Exbt. A1 is the policy issued by the 1st opposite party on the basis of which the complainant made the claim. Exbt. A2 is a letter dated 13-10-2016 issued by the 1st opposite party intimating the complainant that the ‘no claim bonus’ issued by the complainant was based on the submission of the complainant that there was no previous claim and that as per intimation received from M/s. HDFC Insurance Company, the complainant had availed the ‘no claim bonus’. As per Exbt. A2 it was intimated that the complainant has to pay Rs. 1,317/- additionally in order to have validity of the policy. Exbt. A2, the letter was issued on 13-10-2016 and the accident was allegedly happened on 19-10-2016. Exbt. A3 is a letter addressed to the opposite party by the complainant stating that he was an ex-employee of Cholamandalam finance and had worked the DD financial services providers GE Money and the HDFC bank and that he was well aware of the consequences that can happen if any false information was given to procure the insurance policy, and therefore demanding the settlement of the claim at the earliest. Exbt. A4 dated 21-10-2016 is only an estimate and not the final bill for repairs.
9. The opposite party produced Exbt. B1 which is the copy of Exbt. B1 along with the terms and conditions. Exbt. B2 dated 02-12-2016 is a communication of observation that the declaration of the complainant to claim no claim bonus was found to be false and therefore there was serious breach of policy conditions and the principle of utmost good faith has been violated. Exbt. B3 is a survey report prepared by the insurance company’s surveyor which would go to show that the entire repair cost was come only extend of Rs. 97,384/-. Exbt. B4 is the copy of communication received from HDFC Ergo stating that the no claim bonus in their policy was Zero percent.
10. On going through the evidence adduced in this case it is seen that the complainant who is well-versed with the terms and conditions of the policy, have been worked in many financial institutions have proved by Exbt. A3, had suppressed material facts before the 1st opposite party in order to make an illegal claim for no claim bonus and there by had forfeited his claim for violation of the policy conditions. The repudiation of the claim by the insurance company cannot therefore be found as an instance of deficiency in service. The complainant has also not produced the actual bill and instead of that he had produced only a highly inflated quotation for the repair works as against the Exbt. B4 survey report. We find no merit in the complaint and issue is found against the complainant .
11. Issue No. 2. Having found issue No. i against the complainant we find that the complaint liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23rd day of December 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Motor policy Schedule Cum
Certificate of Insurance
A2 : Copy of recovery on NCB
A3 : True copy of letter dt. 01-11-2016
A4 : True copy of estimation details
Opposite party's exhibits: :
Exbt. B1 : Copy of Motor policy schedule
cum-certificate of Insurance
B2 : True copy of letter dt. 02-12-2016
B3 : Copy of Motor Final Survey report
private
B4 : True copy of g-mail
dt. 24-10-2016
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
