DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.96/2008

H.Niaz,

S/o.Hafiz,

Zahad Cottage,

Pattani Street,

Palakkad Taluk,

Palakkad District 678014. - Complainant

(By Adv.John John)

Vs

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Dhasaratha Tower,

Kalmandapam Junction,

Palakkad 678 731. - Opposite party

(By Adv.G.Jayachandran & R.Ajithkumar)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Brief facts of the complaint:-

Complainant insured his Honda motor cycle bearing No.KL09/R7468 with the opposite party vide Policy No.3005/53645590/00/B00 on 14.03.08 by paying Rs.1061/- towards premium. The period of the policy was from 07.03.08 to 06.03.09. During the period of policy coverage his motor cycle met with an accident on 10.04.08 and damages was caused to its headlight assembly, front stem set, disc brake set, back cowl, fuel tank, side stand and some other parts. Complainant preferred a claim with the opposite party for Rs.16,159/- towards repair of the damage caused in the accident. But opposite party repudiated the claim treating complainant's claim as 'No claim'. Opposite party has observed that the damaged spares of accident were manipulated. Complainant alleges that repudiating the

claim without definite reason to treat the claim as 'No claim' is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence complainant praying for an order directing the opposite party to pay a total amount of Rs.31,159/- under different heads.

Opposite party filed version contending the following:-

Opposite party admitted the fact that the complainant vehicle was insured with them. But the liability of the opposite party is strictly subject to the terms, conditions, exclusions, stipulations, depreciation etc stated in the policy. Opposite party submits that the alleged accident caused to the complainant's vehicle is incorrect and hence denied. The claim of the complainant was enquired into the loss assessed by an independent surveyor who has filed report. Opposite party contented that no such accident has occurred and the complainant has made a fabricated a story for the purpose of the claim. It was also found that manipulation has been done with respect to the parts that were allegedly damaged. The damages alleged to the fuel tank and the front cowl set were old damages and the complainant has claimed the very same damages from the New India Assurance Company Ltd during the previous policy with them. Thus the claim of the complainant became not payable and the same was intimated to him. There is no merit in the claim and no mental agony has been sustained to the complainant. Opposite party contented that there is no allegation of deficiency in service in the complaint and the complaint itself is not maintainable. The complaint has been filed without any bonafides. Opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs to the opposite party.

Complainant filed affidavit. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. Opposite party filed affidavit. Ext.B1 to B3 marked on the side of

opposite party. Shri.Babu.A.V was examined as DW1 and Shri.K.Ramakrishnan was examined as DW2.

Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record.

The specific case of the complainant is that opposite party without any definite reason repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant. Opposite party on the other hand contented that the complainant has previously claimed for the very same damages set forth in the complaint from the New India Assurance Company Ltd during the previous policy with them. Further the complainant herein with a motive to extract money from the company has made deliberate misrepresentation regarding the accident and damage to the vehicle. Opposite party however admits the fact that the vehicle was validly insured with them but denies the accident. In order to prove the contention that the complainant has already claimed damages for the same parts of the said vehicle, opposite party examined the Insurance Surveyor as DW1 who happened to survey and give report both with the earlier company and now with the opposite party also. DW1 has deposed that the complainant has refitted the same damages parts involved in the earlier accident and has claimed insurance amount from the present opposite party. DW1 further added that earlier damages was with respect to fuel tank and front cowl set. But in Ext.B1 which is the survey report of the DW1, it can be seen that in addition to the above stated damage, several other damages like handle bar bent, disc break bent, rear center cowl broken etc. were also noted. So the say of DW1 that latter claim is also with respect to the same damages is found to be incorrect. Further DW1 while cross examining has stated that there is no specific evidence as to show that the damaged parts has been refitted to claim the insurance amount. The Branch Manager of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd was examined as DW2 and

Ext.B2 which the motor survey report was marked. Going through Ext.B2 also the damage noted is stated as 'fuel tank dent – FR LH indicator broken. Ext.B1 survey report of the latter claim includes damages to many other parts.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that in the absence of clear and cogent evidence in support of the contentions of opposite party, we are not in a position to accept the said contention. Even though complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.16159.09 as claim amount, surveyor deputed by the opposite party has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.7354.69, deducting depreciations. Complainant is entitled for the said amount only.

In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.7354.69 (Rupees Seven thousand three hundred fifty four and paise sixty nine only) being the insurance amount along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) for the deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 25^th day of February, 2010

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party

DW1 – Shri.Babu.A.V

DW2 – Shri.K.Ramakrishnan

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of insurance policy

Ext.A2 – Photo copy of Estimate

Ext.A3 – Letter dt.15/05/08 sent by opposite party to complainant

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 - Copy of motor survey report dt.30/04/2008

Ext.B2 – True copy of motor survey report dt.09/11/2006

Ext.B3 – Photo copies of fuel tank picture of motor cycle