Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/84/2013

K.Muthuvel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

T.Ravi kumar

12 Nov 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 13.03.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 12.11.2018

 

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.84/2013

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

                                 

K. Muthuvel,

S/o. Mr. M. Krishnavel Nadar,

Door No.47 C, Palayamkottai Road,

Tuticorin Town.                                                           .. Complainant.                                                         

 

..Versus..

 

1. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its General Manager,

No.128, IFFCO Bhavan,

4^th Floor, Habibullah Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.  

 

2. Customer Service Centre,

IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its General Manager,

No.128, IFFCO Bhavan,

4^th Floor, Habibullah Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.  

 

3. Win Investigation Network (P) Ltd.,

Rep. through its General Manager,

No.174-B, North Veli Street,

Madurai – 625 001.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                  :  M/s. T. Ravi Kumar & another

Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 :  M/s. M.B. Gopalan & others

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 praying to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service  with cost to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that his car bearing Registration No.TN 69 AE 6666 met with an accident on 26.03.2012.  The complainant insured the vehicle with the opposite parties and the policy of insurance also subsisting on the date of accident.  Immediately after the accident, the complainant informed the fact of accident to the opposite parties and submitted due claim form.  The accident was registered in the Ettayapuram Police station in Crime No.56/2012.  While the complainant submitting the claim form, the complainant has furnished all the details including the copy of Insurance Policy, Registration Certificates, Driving license, First Information Report (FIR), AIR from Motor Vehicle Inspector Kovilpatti and Claim Form.  On the instruction of the opposite parties, the complainant placed the vehicle before Annamalies Toyoto Company for due repair.  The opposite parties also settled the claim in favour of Annamalai Toyota, the service provider.  Thereafter, the opposite parties repeatedly requested the complainant to submit claim form and documents on 24.09.2012, 30.03.2012, 05.10.2012, 17.12.2012, 07.01.2013 etc.  This has caused considerable hardship and anxiety to the complainant.   Every time while submitting the claim form and documents, the complainant asked the opposite parties the reason behind such claim form and documents.   But the opposite parties has not answered properly and turned deaf ears.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1  to 3 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 to 3 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that this complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant’s  vehicle TN 69 AE 6666 was insured with the opposite parties 1 & 2 for the period from 22.09.2011 to 21.09.2012.   A claim was reported for damage to the vehicle in accident on 26.03.2012.  The claim of the complainant was settled by payment of the cost of repair to M/s. Annamalai Toyota Agencies.   The opposite parties further submit that in the same accident, there had been injury / death of victims involved.   So far, following claims were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the victims or their legal heirs namely; MCOP Nos.252/2012, 340/2012 & 384/2012 filed before The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.   The opposite parties submit that on receipt of the notice from Court in each claim, it is required to be registered in the computer system for being handled further.  The system is intended to ensure that the information is gathered regarding for the purpose of defending each claims that are reported.   The opposite parties demanded repeatedly in order to send the claim form and other details under each circumstances with respective claims to the tribunal.  Further the opposite parties state that as an owner, the complainant shall co-operate with the opposite parties insurance company to defend The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases in order to find out just compensation on the basis of third party risk.  Further the opposite parties state that repeated demand of claim form and other details in what way caused hardship to the complainant by the opposite parties.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3. 

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant’s car bearing Registration No.TN 69 AE 6666 met with an accident on 26.03.2012.  Admittedly, the complainant insured the vehicle with the opposite parties and the policy of insurance also subsisting on the date of accident.  Immediately after the accident, the complainant informed the fact of accident to the opposite parties and submitted due claim form as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2.  The Ettayapuram Police registered a case in Crime No.56/2012 also not denied.  Ex.A8 is F.I.R. copy.   While the complainant submitting the claim form, the complainant has furnished all the details including the copy of Insurance Policy, Registration Certificates, Driving license, First Information Report (FIR), AIR from Motor Vehicle Inspector Kovilpatti and Claim Form.  On the instruction of the opposite parties, the complainant placed the vehicle before Annamalies Toyoto Company for due repair.  The opposite parties also settled the claim in favour of Annamalai Toyota, the service provider.  Thereafter, the opposite parties repeatedly requested the complainant to submit claim form and documents on 24.09.2012, 30.03.2012, 05.10.2012, 17.12.2012, 07.01.2013 etc as per Ex.A10, Ex.A15 & Ex.A16 which caused great inconvenience and mental agony.  Every time while submitting the claim form and documents, the complainant asked the opposite parties the reason behind such claim form and documents.   But the opposite parties has not answered properly and turned deaf ears.   Repeated claim / demands of claim form on various dates with canister motive amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost.

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that this complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of the Consumer Protection Act.  Admittedly, the claim of the complainant was settled by payment of the cost of repair to M/s. Annamalai Toyota Agencies.  The only question under the guise of deficiency is that repeated claim of claim form and documents. The opposite parties claimed claim form and other particulars every time since admittedly, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle.  It is also admitted in the impugned accident that there are causalities and injured and several claims namely MCOP Nos.252/2012, 340/2012 & 384/2012 were filed before The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as per Ex.B2, Ex.B3 & Ex.B4.   For every claim, the opposite parties has taken suitable defence.  Hence this opposite parties was constrained to demand repeatedly in order to send the claim form and other details under each circumstances with respective claims to the tribunal.  As an owner, the complainant shall co-operate with the opposite parties insurance company to defend The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases in order to find out just compensation on the basis of third party risk.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that repeated demand of claim form and other details in what way caused hardship to the complainant has not been pleaded and proved.   Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repeated demand of claim form and details of the vehicle.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the compliant has to be dismissed.

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

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 12^th day of November 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1		Copy of letter of the complainant
Ex.A2		Copy of Claim Form
Ex.A3		Copy of Claim Discharge Voucher Copy given in advance
Ex.A4	22.09.2011	Copy of Policy from 22.09.2011 to 20.09.2012
Ex.A5	22.09.2011	Copy of Policy from 22.09.2012 to 21.09.2013
Ex.A6		Copy of Registration Certificate
Ex.A7		Copy of Driving Licence
Ex.A8		Copy of FIR
Ex.A9		Copy of Accident Inspection Report
Ex.A10	24.09.2012	Copy of letter from the opposite party
Ex.A11	03.10.2012	Copy of letter from the complainant
Ex.A12	17.12.2012	Copy of letter from the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A13	07.01.2013	Copy of reply from the complainant to the 3rd opposite party letter dated:07.01.2013
Ex.A14		Copy of acknowledgment cards
Ex.A15	11.02.2013	Copy of letter of the opposite party
Ex.A16	12.02.2013	Copy of letter of the opposite party
Ex.A17		Copy of blank claim form

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex. B1		Copy of claim form submitted by the complainant
Ex. B2	19.07.2012	Copy of MCOP No.252/2012
Ex. B3	22.08.2012	Copy of MCOP No.340/2012
Ex. B4	09.10.2012	Copy of MCOP No.384/2012

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT