IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

        Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

   Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member

CC No. 228/15

Thursday the 27^th   day of October, 2016

Complainant                                     :  Dr.M.Sarasijan,

                                                              Twins Villa, Pulimel,

                                                              Alapuzha, Pin690504 Now residing

                                                               At Sarasi Residence, Erumely,

                                                               Kottayam Dt.686 509

                                                            (Adv. Joseph Paul)

.                           

                                                          Vs.

Opposite parties                               : HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd

                                                                2^nd floor, Chicago Plaza, Near KSRTC

                                                                 Bus Stand, Rajaji Road, Cochin

                                                                 682 035.

                                                             (Adv. Agi Joseph)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

The case of the complainant filed on 21/8/15 is as follows.

The complainant’s vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-31-D 2651 Verna Car was insured with opposite party vide Policy No.2311200622942800000 valid from 28-11-13 to 27/11/2014.  On 14-11-14 at about 11 P.M at Mukkada on the

Ranny - Erumely public road hit against a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-37-B-5649.  According to the complainant at the time of accident the car was driven by the complainant’s brother Bijimon who have valid driving licence.  Immediately after the accident it was intimated to the Manimala Police Station and after investigation they made a G.D entry.  Then the vehicle was taken to MGM Hundai work shop at Vadavathoor, Kottayam, which is the authorized work shop  and he had spent Rs.1,92,000/- as  repairing charges, spare part value, floor rent and interest of the invoice amount incurred.  Then the complainant submitted claim from duly filled with the copy of the GD entry and all relevant records.  But the opposite parties had rejected the claim stating that there is suppression of material fact that at the time of accident the claimant was driving the vehicle.  According to the complainant he is a disabled person and not capable to drive any vehicle.  And at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by his brother Bijimon who have a valid driving licence and as per the direction of the investigator’s of the opposite party the said Bijimon had given a letter to the investigator stating all the facts.  Subsequently at the time of renewal of the policy no claim bonus was denied by the opposite party.  Then on 17-1-15 he had sent a legal notice to the opposite party claiming payment of the damages of Rs. 1,92,000/-.  But opposite party did not pay the claim amount.  According to the complainant the above act of the opposite party, amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

Opposite party had appeared but they failed to file version within statutory period as per Consumer Protection Act.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10941, 10942/13, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd; categorically stated that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission.  The version filed by the opposite party after 30 days or within extended period not exceeding 15 days cannot be accepted.

Points for considerations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A7 documents.

Point No.1

          The crux of the complainant’s case is that his genuine claim, regarding the accident repair of his vehicle, was illegally rejected by the opposite party.  Since the opposite party has not filed any version in time within statutory period we are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the complainant and documents.  In our view the act opposite party in not settling the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  Complainant’s claim an amount of Rs.1,92,000/- incurred by him including repairing charges, spare parts value, floor rent, interest of invoice etc.  Eventhough the complainant’s claims Rs.1,92,000/- no scrap of paper has been produced by the complainant to prove his contention.  In our view allowing the amount assessed by the surveyor will meet the ends of justice.  Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

          In view of the findings in point No.1 complaint is allowed.

          In the result,

1. The opposite party is ordered to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor to the complainant.
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  27^th day of October, 2016.

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President             Sd/-

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member     Sd/-

Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member          Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of complainant

Ext.A1-Photocopy of private car package policy

Ext.A2-Photocopy of G.D entry

Ext.A3-Photocopy of letter

Ext.A4-Photocopy of claim rejection letter dtd 22/12/14

Ext.A5-copy lawyer’s notice dtd 17/1/15

Ext.A6-Reply letter dtd 20/1/15

Ext.A7-Photocopy of driving licence

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

S/3cs