Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/291

THOMAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENERAL MANAGER, M/S CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

G GOPALAKRISHNAN

19 May 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.291/2015

JUDGMENT DATED:19/05/2016

 (Against the order in CC.No.37/2014 on the file of CDRF,  Palakkad, dated :20.08.2014)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIALMEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Thomas, S/o. Thankachan,

          Valiyaparambil House, Cherappadam,

          Thenkara P.O., Mannarkkadd,

          Palakkad District.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. G.Gopalakrishnan & A. Udayarekha)

 

                                                          Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. The General Manager,

          M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          2^nd Floor, Dear House, 2 NSC Bose Road,

          Chennai – 600001.

 

2. The Manager,

          M/s. Cholaman dalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          Regional Office, 2^nd Floor,

          City Arcade Complex,

          Guruvayur Road, Thrissur.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

          M/s. IndusInd Bank, Palakkadu Branch,

          Chandra Nager, Palakkad.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. V. Manikantan Nair for R1 & R2

            Adv: Sri. S. Krishnakumar for R3)

 

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant is the complainant in CC No.37/2014 in the CDRF, Palakkad.  The complainant purchased an Auto Rikshaw by availing loan from the 3^rd opposite party.  The vehicle was insured with opposite parties 1 and 2.  It is alleged in the complaint that on 27.01.2014 during the existence of the policy, the vehicle capsized at Mannarkkad and the vehicle was substantially damaged.  The front wind glass, indicator, headlight and left mirror were broken.  Rexine cover and battery were also damaged.  The body of the vehicle and chassis also got damaged.  The accident was reported to police.  The vehicle was repaired incurring an expenditure of Rs.30,487/-.  The complainant submitted claim before opposite parties 1 and 2 through the 3^rd opposite party.  But the 1^st opposite party sanctioned only an amount of Rs.8,000/-.   Since the entire expended amount was not paid, the complainant approached the consumer forum alleging deficiency in service and claiming an amount of Rs.65,487/-.

          2.      Opposite parties 1 and 2 admitted that they had issued insurance policy for the vehicle as alleged and accident happened during existence of the policy but contended that the aim of the complainant is unlawful gain. The vehicle was of the model 2012. The warranty period and life span of the battery were over.  Complainant is trying to claim amounts for parts which were not damaged by producing fabricated bills.   Eligible amount was sanctioned by the opposite parties.   There was no deficiency in service on their part.

          3.      Before the consumer forum both parties filed affidavits in lieu of chief examination.  Exts. A1 to A7 marked on the side of complainant and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of opposite parties 1 and 2.  After appreciating the evidence the consumer forum held that there was no cogent evidence to brush aside the survey report relied on by the opposite party.  Since the complainant failed to prove his case the complaint was liable to be dismissed.  The complainant questions the correctness of the conclusions of the consumer forum.

          4.      Admittedly the Auto Rikshaw of the complainant capsized on 27.1.2014 and was damaged while insurance coverage for the vehicle was in existence.  The appellant claimed that he had spent Rs.30,487/- for repairing the vehicle.  But opposite parties 1 and 2 sanctioned only Rs.8,000/-.  The complainant has claimed the balance amount allegedly spent by them along with compensation.  It is pertinent to mention that in a claim like the present one it is incumbent on the complainant to prove the extent of damage sustained to the vehicle in the accident and the amount required to be spent to restore the vehicle to the condition prior to the accident and that he had actually spent that much amount.  In the present case apart from Ext.B2 Motor survey report there is absolutely no evidence to show the extent of damage sustained to the vehicle.  The complainant is not entitled to make repairs in such a way as to improve the condition of the vehicle and unlawfully gain by that process.  Only those repairs essential to restore the vehicle to its condition just prior to the accident is permissible.   As observed by the consumer forum,   there is absolutely no evidence to show the extent of damage sustained to the vehicle and that only permissible repairs were effected to the vehicle.  In the above background the only acceptable evidence is Ext. B2 Motor survey report and the insurance company has already paid the claim as per the Motor survey report.  A consumer forum cannot sit in appeal against the decisions of the insurance company.  No doubt insurance service falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act but only if deficiency in service is involved.  A consumer forum cannot substitute its own assessment of damages without any evidence.  So in the absence of evidence on the crucial aspects the consumer forum was justified in relying on the motor survey report and dismissing the complaint.  The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

1. RADHA               : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO.291/2015

JUDGMENT DATED:19/05/2015

 

 

nb