CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 111/2010.
Wednesday, the 30th day of May, 2012.
Petitioner : Thomas Varghese,
Koodathil House,
Madappally P.O
Changanacherry.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The General Manager,
HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Company Ltd., 6th Floor,
Leela Business Park
Antheri-Kurla Road, Mumbai.
2) The Claim Officer,
HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Co. Ltd. 4E, 4th Floor,
K.G OXFORD Business Centre,
Sreekanth Road, Ravipuram,
Kochi – 682 016.
(By Adv. Agi Joseph)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 29..4..2010, is as follows.
Petitioner is the registered owner of a Santro Car , which was insured with opposite party insurance company. Insurance policy is valid from 1..10..2009 to 2..10..2010. During the policy period, insured vehicle, met with an accident and as a result of accident petitioner sustained total loss. Petitioner intimated the accident to the opposite party and submitted the claim. Opposite party after lapse of long time intimated the petitioner that the claim will be settled and the same was informed to hire purchase bank ie. ICIC Bank. According to the petitioner opposite party refused to make payment on the ground that the passengers in the vehicle at material time of accident were intoxicated.
-2-
The vehicle is valued for Rs. 2,25,000/-. Vehicle is a 2007 model Santro Car. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in non settling of claim amounts to deficiency in service so, he prays for an order directing opposite party to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- with 18% interest from 26/10/2009 till payment. Petitioner claims costs and compensation.
Opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to opposite party petitioner is not the actual owner of the vehicle and one Santhosh is the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. Petitioner has no insurable interest and the vehicle was given for rent a car business. The insurance company deputed an IRDA qualified surveyor for assessing the damage of the vehicle and he submitted the repot on 26..12..2009. Assessing the damage for an amount of Rs. 1,54,500/-. According to the opposite party they are liable only for the liability as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the survey report. So opposite party prays for dismissal of petition with their cost.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and
Ext. A1 to A7 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party has not settled the claim of petitioner on the ground that occupants in the car
-3-
were intoxicated. Petitioner produced a certificate issued by opposite party dtd. 9..3..2010. Said letter is marked as Ext. A6. In Ext. A6 it is stated that opposite party is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 1,54,500/- on the basis of salvage loss. Policy and accident admitted. According to the opposite party the occupants in the vehicle were intoxicated. Opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove their contention of intoxication of occupants. Admittedly the surveyor is appointed to assess the loss and damage of the vehicle. Surveyor assessed the damage for an amount of Rs. 1,54,500/-. According to the petitioner he is entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- because, as per the policy condition petitioner is entitled for compensation on total loss basis. As per regulation 9(2) of IRDA (Protection of policy holders interest) regulation 2002. Opposite party shall communicate the finding of surveyor to the insurer within 30 days of his appointment with a copy of the report being furnished to the insured.
As per regulation 9(5) on receipt of the survey report insurer shall within a period of 30 days offer settlement of the claim to the insured . As per regulation 9(6) upon acceptance of statement of the amount due shall be made within 7 days from the date of acceptance of the offer by the insured. In the case of delay in payment insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2 percent above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of financial year in which the claim is occurred. In our view the non settlement of claim of the petitioner on flimsy ground amounts to deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
-4-
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is allowed. Opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,54,500/- with 12 % interest from 3..10..2009 till payment. Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents of the Petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of cover note Dtd: 2..10..2009
Ext. A2: Copy of FIR
Ext. A3: Copy of final report
Ext. A4: Copy of letter Dtd: 21..1..2010 issued by the petitioner to the
opposite party.
Ext. A5: Copy of agreement between the petitioner and opposite party
Dtd: 24..2..2010
Ext. A6: Copy of letter Dtd: 9..3..2010 issued by the Manager of the
opposite party to the petitioner.
Ext. A7: Copy of claim rejection letter Dtd: 24..3..2010.
Documents for the Opposite party:
Ext. B1: Copy of investigation report
Ext. B2: Copy of survey report
Ext. B3: Copy of final report in Crime 421/09 of Kumily P.S.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
