View 45069 Cases Against General Insurance
tmt.Rajammal filed a consumer case on 02 May 2018 against IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd. in the South Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 73/2010 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Jul 2018.
Date of Filing : 09.02.2010
Date of Order : 02.05.2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
@ 2nd 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.73/2010
DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2018
Tmt. Rajammal,
W/o. Mr. S.M. Kanagaraj,
D. No.101 C, Kamarajar Street,
Chinnkodiveri,
Gopichettipalayam,
Erode District. .. Complainant.
..Versus..
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
No.28, (Old No.195), 1 & 2nd 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.90,000/- towards compensation for damages caused to the insured vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- 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.1,80,000/- from the date of complaint to till the date of payment.
The complainant submits that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 36 E 7635, met with an accident on 14.02.2008 and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 15.07.2007 to 14.07.2008 vide policy No. 37196086. The complainant submits that due to the accident happened on 14.2.2008, the TATA LMV Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 36 E 7635 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:08.12.2009 and the opposite party sent a reply dated:08.01.2010 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 15.07.2007 to 14.07.2008 and the said vehicle is a LMV goods vehicle. Immediately after due intimation of the accident dated:14.02.2008, the opposite party appointed an independent surveyor who inspected the vehicle. After investigation completed, the assignment and filed a final survey report to the insurer. It was verified and found by the opposite party that, the driver of the vehicle one Mr. Kanagaraj has valid policy to drive LMV vehicle, but no badge to drive LMV goods vehicle which is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 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 her evidence and documents from Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked. Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. The Points for consideration before the Forum is:-
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 36 E 7635 met with an accident on 14.02.2008 and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 15.07.2007 to 14.07.2008 vide policy No. 37196086. 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 14.2.2008, the TATA LMV Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 36 E 7635 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 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 Ex.A3.
6. The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the vehicle was insured for the period from 15.07.2007 to 14.07.2008. The said vehicle is a LMV goods vehicle. Immediately after the intimation of accident dated:14.02.2008, the opposite party appointed an independent surveyor who inspected the vehicle and after due investigation, filed his report as per Ex.B1. In Ex.B1, it is very clear that the accident was happened “while negotiating the curved road insured’s driver lost his control and the vehicle passed into road side pit and sustained damage”. The driver of the vehicle one Mr. Kanagaraj has valid driving license to drive LMV vehicle but no badge to drive the same LMV goods vehicle which is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the opposite party repudiated the complainant’s claim. The opposite party submitted the decisions reported in
2008 (1) CPJ 1 by the Supreme Court in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
Prabhulal
Held that..
“The driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license for commercial vehicle, the complainants were liable to be compensated on ‘non-standard’ basis, which was worked out to 1,75,500/-, as 75% of the amount of 2,34,000/-”
and in
2009 (5) Supreme 338 etc.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
Suresh Chandra Aggarwal
Held that..
“It is made out from the facts of the case, therefore, that there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, because the owner of the vehicle, i.e. deceased Baldev Raj allowed a person, who did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. As per the ratio of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “New India Assurance company Limited Vs Prabhu Lal” (supra), and “ National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Aggarwal” (supra)”, where the driver of the vehicle had valid license to ply only LMV, but had no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, the owner of the said vehicle was not entitled to claim any compensation from the insurer”.
7. 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 02nd day of May 2018.
MEMBER –I PRESIDENT
COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 | 15.09.2007 | Copy of Insurance policy issued by the opposite party to the complainant |
Ex.A2 |
| Copy of R.C. Book |
Ex.A3 | 08.12.2009 | Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party |
Ex.A4 | 14.12.2009 | Copy of Acknowledgement card for the above legal notice |
Ex.A5 | 08.01.2010 | Copy of the reply issued by the opposite party |
OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1 | 02.03.2009 | Copy of survey report |
Ex.B2 | 05.03.2009 | Copy of claim repudiation letter by the opposite party to the complainant |
Ex.B3 | 08.12.2009 | Copy of legal notice received from the complainant |
Ex.B4 | 08.01.2010 | Copy of reply by the opposite party to the complainant |
MEMBER –I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.