DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 26th Day of December 2011 Present : Smt.Seena H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 27/08/2010 (C.C.No.107/2010) Manoj Kumar.A, S/o.Kunjiraman, 7/113, Odampara House, Kulakkad, Cherupulassery, Palakkad. (Adv.P.Sreeprakash) - Complainant V/s 1.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd. Sun Links, IInd Floor, Athulya Building, Chunnambuthara, Palakkad. (By Adv.P.Prasad) 2.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd. Ramson House, H.T.Parekh Marg, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai- 400 020 - Opposite parties (By Adv.P.Prasad) O R D E R By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL-9-N-9154. It is 2004 model Maruthi 800 CC car with Engine No.F8BIN2559071. The vehicle is covered a comprehensive insurance policy issued by the 1st opposite party on behalf of the registered company 2nd opposite party. The policy is in effect from 00.00 hrs on 2/2/2009 and is valid upto 00.00 hrs on 1/2/2010. A sum of Rs.2,810/- is paid towards the insurance premium. On 3/3/09 at about 2.00 hrs it was brought to the notice that the vehicle caught fire and due to the fire the front portion of the vehicle including the engine is totally damaged. The vehicle was parked in the car shed of the complainant. The Sub Inspector of police conducted detailed enquiry on the basis of the complaint. The vehicle caught fire and is totally damaged is brought to the notice of opposite party. Documents were also submitted for the purpose of getting compensation. According to the opposite parties there is delay in informing the matter and the matter was informed to them about 30 days from the date of incident. Hence the opposite parties denied the policy benefit. Complainant has informed the fire incident to the 1st opposite party orally immediately after the incident. Later at the instance of the 1st opposite party a request in writing was made by the complainant. Since the fact was informed and the delay in filing a written complaint was due to valid reasons for denial of policy benefit is illegal. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Due to the fire except the damaged Skelton entire car is damaged. On 16/11/2009 complainant issued a lawyer notice to the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties not replied or payment is made so far. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and pay cost of the proceedings. Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The complainant has not submitted any claim form or intimated the accident in writing or orally to the opposite parties. The complainant should submit the claim form within a reasonable time to process the claim. There is no Surveyor’s Report or Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report to assess the damages if any caused to the vehicle. There is no valid reasons for not informing the matter to opposite parties and there is no written notice or complaint within reasonable time. Since there is no claim form or intimation the opposite parties could not inspect the vehicle and assess the damage or loss if any caused. As per the complaint the incident was on 3/3/09 and the complaint filed before the police only on 24/3/2009. As per condition No.1 of the policy notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence or any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. But the complainant is keeping silent all the time. The car is also not damaged as stated in the petition. Hence, the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost. Both parties filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A7 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of the opposite party. Commission Report marked as C1. Complainant and opposite party examined. Matter was heard. Issues to be considered are 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ? 2. If so, what is the relief and cost ? Issue No.1 & 2 Admittedly there is a valid insurance policy from 2/2/09 to 1/2/2010. As per the complaint the fire incident was happened on 3/3/09. In Ext.A1 the complainant informed the fire incident to the police on 24/3/2009 and the certificate issued by the Sub Inspector of Police on 25/3/2009. In Ext.A7 the detailed telephone bill shows that on 3/2/2009 call is made to the toll free number from the complainant’s house. At the time of cross examination the opposite party deposed that if a call is made to the toll free number a claim ID or a number would be automatically generated and informed to the person making the call then and there in the telephone. In Ext.A4 and B1 clearly mentioned the toll free number is 1800-2-700700. The opposite parties not produced any contradictory evidence and also objection not raised on marking of Ext.A7. At the time of cross examination the complainant deposed that the incident was on 3/2/09 and stated that the date was changed for the purpose of getting the insurance claim as per the direction of the opposite parties. In short the fire incident happened on 3/2/09 and intimated to the opposite parties on 3/2/09. The complainant stated that the date of incident changed on 3/3/09 as per the direction of opposite parties. In fact there is a valid policy from 2/2/09 to 1/2/2010 shows in Ext.B1. At the time of cross examination the opposite party deposed that the original issued to the complainant and the office copy was marked as Ext.B1. No documentary evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show that the original of Ext.B1 given to the complainant. The signature of complainant is not given in Ext.B1 document. The opposite parties not produced the evidence to show that the policy conditions given to complainant. In Ext.A4 the cover note issued by the 1st opposite party shows that making a claim in case of an accident (a) First call our toll free number 1800-2-700-700 (b) Provide your certificate number (c) Request for help with towing / ambulance services, if required (in the case of private cars only) (d) If your vehicle can be driven, take it to the dealer / garage of your choice (e) Get a repair estimate, fill up the claim form and attach a copy of the RC Book and licence of the person driving (f) Advise the dealer / garage to start the repairs after assessment by an independent surveyor or appointed on our behalf (g) Pay for any non-accident related repairs, depreciation and a small deductible. No where stated notice shall be given in writing to the company within a reasonable time to process the claim. In Ext.A6 the photos shows the damages of a car. The commissioner appointed to inspect the damages and the amount required to repair the damages of the car. In Ext.C1 report the net assessed loss is Rs.1,25,000/- The commissioner stated that the engine and engine room components completely burnt, aprons deformed, fenders damaged, front hood buckled, dash board melted, front seats burnt, front bumper melted, head lights broken and suspension damaged. The Commissioner stated in the report that the engine and bonnet portion of the vehicle is beyond repair and has to be replaced with a new one. The opposite parties filed objection to commissioner report. The main contention in the objection is that the condition of the vehicle and damages at the time of incident cannot be assessed at this stage. At the time of examination the opposite parties has denied the substantial damages caused to the car due to the fire. So the commissioner was appointed and filed report. In Ext.A7 shows the fire incident informed to the opposite parties through phone on 3/2/2009. But the opposite parties not inspected the car and not given the claim amount. In Ext.C1 the Surveyor reported that the vehicle may be considered to be totally damaged. In Ext.B1 stated that IDV shall be treated as the market value throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of Total Loss. The opposite parties failed to prove the policy conditions given to complainant. If the fire incident happened on 3/2/09 or 3/3/09, there is a valid policy on the complainant’s car. In Ext.A5, year of manufacture of car on 2004. In Ext.A4 the insured declared value is Rs.80,208/-. In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result the complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.80,208/- (Rupees Eighty thousand two hundred and eight only) as the insured amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. on 9/9/2009 to date of order and pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization. Pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of December 2011 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha G Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K. Member APPENDIX Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext.A1 – Copy of certificate issued by SI of police,Cherpulassery dtd.25/3/09 Ext.A2 – Copy of letter dated 9/9/09 sent to complainant by opposite party Ext.A3 series – Copy of lawyer notice dated 16/11/09 sent to opposite party along with postal receipt and acknowledgement card. Ext.A4 – Insurance cover note issued by opposite party Ext.A5 – Certificate of Registration (original) Ext.A6 – Photos of damaged car (3 nos) Ext.A7 – Detailed call bills of complainant issued by BSNL. Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite parties Ext.B1 – Copy of Insurance Policy of the Car Complainant examined PW1 – Manojkumar.A Opposite party examined DW1 – Kamal Kumar Ext.C1 – Commissioner Report Cost Allowed Rs.3,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings. | 
