Maharashtra

Additional DCF, Mumbai(Suburban)

RBT/CC/12/270

MR.RAJENDRA PANDURANG KADAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. Kalpana Trivedi

02 Dec 2017

ORDER

Addl. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District
Admin Bldg., 3rd floor, Nr. Chetana College, Bandra-East, Mumbai-51
 
Complaint Case No. RBT/CC/12/270
 
1. MR.RAJENDRA PANDURANG KADAM
SMRAT ASHOK NAGAR, BORLA, GOVANDI,
MUMBAI 400088
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
AFL HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, LOKBHARATI COMPLEX, MAROL, MAROSHI ROAD, ANDHEIR (EAST),
MUMBAI 400059
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S.D.MADAKE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. S.V.KALAL MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 02 Dec 2017
Final Order / Judgement

PRESENT

          Complainant in person along with Adv.Shri.S.K.Pande present.                                                          

         Opponent- Absent.    

                    

                                      ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President. )

  1. The Complainant purchased motor bike M Stunner for a price of Rs. 63673/- which is hypothecated with Indusland bank. On  14.09.2011, the said motor bike was parked opp. Hanuman temple at Gautam Nagar at about 3:15 p.m. The said vehicle was fully damaged due to dash of dumper. In the said accident two people died and case came to be filed against driver of dumper.
  2. According to Complainant, he filed claim with Opposite Party insurance company as per the rules. The insurer forwarded claim to surveyor on  07.11.2011, where on the surveyor opined was totally damaged and observed that claim be considered on  the basis of total loss.
  3. The Complainant alleged that, insurance company was ready to pay only Rs. 30840/- without lawful justification. He was required to pay loan of vehicle by paying penal interest at the rate of 36% p.a. on  unpaid amount in addition to EMI ascertained by the bank.
  4. According to Complainant, Opposite Party assured that if total loss occurred within 120 days from the date of purchase then full price will be refunded.
  5. The Complainant prayed for direction to Opposite Party to pay Rs. 63673/- as cost of vehicle, compensation and cost. The complaint was admitted on  04.07.2012.
  6. The Opposite Party filed written statement and submitted that all allegations in the complaint are totally denied. It is stated that vehicle no. MH-03-BD-0448 which was insured under the policy no. 77171650 for a period 28.07.2011 to 27.07.2012 with total IDV of Rs. 53,209/-
  7. The Opposite Party stated that assessor was appointed to assess the loss and the claim was sanctioned as per report of assessor to the amount of Rs. 30840/- and the same was initiated to the Complainant. The fact of accident and damage is not denied. The Opposite Party stated that considering all facts, liability was partly repudiated after application of mind so there is no cause of action to file present complaint. It is prayed for dismissal of complaint.
  8. Perused complaint, written statement, affidavit of evidence, written submission, as well as all documents filed on  record.
  9. Admittedly, the motor vehicle owned by the Complainant was insured with Opposite Party at the time of accident. There is no dispute that the damage was caused to said vehicle. The documents shows that two persons died in the said accident.
  10. We have perused letter dated 07.11.2011 issued by the accident in charge Pilot Honda to Opposite Party that claim be considered on  the basis of total two wheelers Pvt. Ltd. to Complainant shows that the vehicle cannot be repaired having major damages.
  11. The photo copies filed on  record regarding the condition of vehicle shows that the vehicle was so damaged that it cannot be repaired. The surveyor sent letter to the Complainant on  02.12.2011, demanding documents i.e. original bills. The assessment is made of Rs. 30840/-.
  12. The accident occurred on  14.04.2011 and it was legitimately expected that insurance company should appoint surveyor within surveyor within reasonable time. There is unreasonable delay in assessment of damage. The documents on  record shows that the vehicle was totally damaged. Hence, Opposite Party is liable Opposite Party is liable to pay as per the terms of policy i.e. I.D.V. i.e. 53209.
  13. The Complainant is subjected to mental agony due to denial of his legitimate claim during last about seven years. He is entitle for compensation of Rs. 12000/- and cost of Rs. 10000/-. He is entitle for interest at 9% p.a. from the date of accident.
  14. We pass the following order.

                                         O R D E R

1.       RBT Complaint case No.270/2012  is partly allowed.

2.       The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 53,209/- with interest at 9% from the date of accident i.e. 14.09.2011 till payment.

3.       The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as cost.      

4.       Copy of this order be sent to both parties.                                           

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.D.MADAKE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.V.KALAL]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.