Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

77/2010

N.S.Kumaresan - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO- TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd.,Manager - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.Ramakrishnan

02 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                     Date of Filing :   17.02.2010

                                                                       Date of Order :   02.05.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 @  2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3.

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B., M.L.                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                 : MEMBER I

 

C.C. NO.77/2010

   DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 2^ND DAY OF MAY 2018

N.S. Kumaresan,

S/o. Mr. Srinivasan,

Naidu Street,

Pigagam Post,

Tambaram,

Villupuram District.                                                      .. Complainant.

 

..Versus..

 

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

No.28, (Old No.195), 1 & 2^nd Floor,

North Usman Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                             .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the Complainant                :   Mr. K.S. Ramakrishnan

Counsel for the Opposite party             :   M/s. N. Vijayaraghavan & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards compensation for damages caused to the insured vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and mental stress due to deficiency of service with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. for the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- from the date of complaint to till the date of payment.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he is the owner of the Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing registration No.TN 32 C 1220, met with an accident on 05.10.2007 and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 05.12.2006 to 04.12.2007 vide policy No. 36280873. The complainant submits that due to the accident happened on 05.10.2007, the Ashok Leyland Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 32 C 1220 sustained severe damage. Immediately after the accident, it was informed to the insurance company: Surveyor also appointed by the opposite party. After due repair, the complainant submitted claim form for claiming compensation which was repudiated by the opposite party after inordinate delay.Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case after issuing legal notice dated:24.11.2009 and the opposite party sent a reply dated:03.12.2009 to the complainant’s Counsel stating that they had repudiated the claim and the same was already intimated to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed.

 

 

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

    The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.It is admitted by the opposite party that the vehicle was insured by the complainant for the period from 05.12.2006 to 04.12.2007 and the said vehicle is a LMV goods vehicle.  Immediately after due intimation of the accident dated:05.10.2007, the opposite party appointed an independent surveyor who inspected the vehicle. After due investigation, completed the assignment and filed a final survey report to the insurer.  It was verified and found by the opposite party that, the vehicle was registered as Goods carrying vehicle and used for carrying passengers at the time of accident and it is against the terms of permit condition as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence the opposite party repudiated the complainant’s claim.  There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked on the side of the opposite party.

 

4.     The Points for consideration before the Forum is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards compensation for damages caused to the vehicle bearing registration no. TN 32 C 1220 as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and stress along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as prayed for?

5.     On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc. Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of the LMV vehicle bearing registration No.TN 32 C 1220 met with an accident on 05.10.2007 and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 05.12.2006 to 04.12.2007 vide policy No. 36280873. Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are the copy of Insurance policy and RC book.  The complainant pleaded and contended that due to the accident happened on 05.10.2007, the Ashok Leyland LMV Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 32 C 1220 sustained severe damage.  Immediately after the accident, it was informed to the insurance company: due Surveyor also appointed by the opposite party.  After due repair, the complainant submitted claim form claiming compensation which was repudiated by the opposite party after inordinate delay.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case after issuing legal notice Ex.A3.    The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the vehicle was insured for the period from 05.12.2006 to 04.12.2007.   The said vehicle is a LMV goods vehicle.  Immediately after the intimation of accident dated:05.10.2007, the opposite party appointed an independent surveyor Mr. S. Ramasamy, who inspected the vehicle and after due investigation filed his report.   On a perusal of FIR  Ex.B2, it is very clear that the accident was happened “As on date and time of accident the number of persons travelled in the insured vehicle are in excess of the seating capacity as mentioned in the Registration Certificate. (As per RC seating capacity including driver is 3 persons, where in at the time of accident 4 persons were travelling in I.V).”  Travelling excess number of persons in the same insured LMV goods vehicle is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the opposite party repudiated the complainant’s claim. 

6.     Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

 

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd  day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                              PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	15.12.2007	Copy of Insurance policy issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A2		Copy of R.C. Book
Ex.A3	24.11.2009	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A4	27.11.2009	Copy of Acknowledgement card for the above legal notice
Ex.A5	03.12.2009	Copy of the reply issued by the opposite party
Ex.A6	16.12.2009	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A7	22.12.2009	Copy of Acknowledgement card for the above legal notice

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.B1		Copy of the policy
Ex.B2	17.12.2007	Copy of survey report

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                              PRESIDENT