Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

28/2010

P.Krishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

K.S.Ramakrishnan

03 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                       Date of Filing  : 24.12.2009

                                                                         Date of Order : 03.05.2018

 

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.28 /2010

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 03^RD DAY OF MAY 2018

                                 

P. Krishnan,

S/o. Mr. Ponnusamy,

No.63, Thiruvallur Nagar,

Lakshmipuram,

Kolathur,

Chennai.                                                           .. 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 complainant         :  M/s. K. S. Ramakrishnan

Counsel for opposite party     :  M/s. R. Vijaya Kamala

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to pay a sum of Rs.80,380/- towards damages caused to the insured vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that his Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing registration No. TN 63 W 8938 met with an accident on 28.01.2008 was insured with the opposite for the period from 05.02.2007 to 04.02.2008.  The complainant further submits that immediately after the accident, due intimation was given to the opposite party insurance company.  The opposite party appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report.  The complainant made necessary arrangements to repair the vehicle and he applied for insurance claim along with the bills.  Since the opposite party has not settled the claim and dragged the complainant from pillar to post, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated: 06.10.2009 for which, the opposite party had repudiated the claim and sent a reply to the complainant’s Counsel dated:20.10.2009.   The attitude of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.   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 allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party states that the vehicle Ashok Leyland bearing registration No.TN 63 W 8938 is a commercial vehicle met with an accident on 28.01.2008.  But the complainant has not intimated the accident to the police and hence there is no FIR in support of the claim.     Further the opposite party states that the complainant has not produced any document to prove the proper claim and acknowledgement of the liability of the opposite party.  The opposite party states that in his reply dated:10.03.2008,  it was intimated to the complainant that the file of the complainant was closed as “No claim” since there was violation of policy terms and conditions and carried excess goods against the weightage specified in the Permit.  Hence there is no deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint.  Hence this 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.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.80,380/- with interest towards damages caused to the insured vehicle as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony with cost as prayed?

 

 

5.     On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the vehicle Ashok Leyland bearing registration No. TN 63 W 8938 met with an accident on 28.01.2008 was insured with the opposite party for the period from 05.02.2007 to 04.02.2008 as per Ex.A1, the copy of insurance and Ex.A2 is the RC book.  The complainant further contended that immediately after the accident due intimation was given to the opposite party insurance company.  But there is no record.  The opposite party appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report.  But no record produced.  The complainant took the vehicle for repairs and submitted the bills to the opposite party.  But the complainant has not produced any record.  Since the opposite party has not settled the claim and dragged the complainant from pillar to post, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice as per Ex.A3 on 06.10.2009, for which, the opposite party sent a reply intimating that the file of the complainant was closed as “No claim” since there was violation of policy terms and conditions and carried excess goods against the weightage specified in the Permit.  The opposite party also has not come forward to settle the claim amount.   The attitude of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case claiming a sum of Rs.80,380/- towards damages caused to the vehicle with compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.    But the complainant has not proved any of the claim in the manner known to law. 

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the Ashok Leyland Vehicle bearing registration No.TN 63 W 8938 is a commercial vehicle met with an accident on 28.01.2008.  But the complainant has not intimated the accident to the police.    Hence no FIR in support of the claim to prove the accident.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not produced any document to prove the proper claim namely the claim form and acknowledgement of the liability of the opposite party.  In the reply dated:20.10.2009, the opposite party has clearly stated that “insured carried excess load in the vehicle at the time of accident than the permitted carrying capacity.  Under these circumstances, in view of the violation of MV act and also policy terms, we have repudiated the claim”.  The complainant also has not filed any document to substantiate the claim of Rs.80,380/- towards damages to the vehicle. There is no Motor Vehicle Inspector Report to evidence the damages.  There is no estimate and bills for such alleged repairs.  The claim for compensation is also imaginary.  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 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 03^rd  day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	13.05.2007	Copy of Insurance policy
Ex.A2		Copy of R.C. Book
Ex.A3	06.10.2009	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A4		Copy of acknowledgement card for the legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel
Ex.A5	20.10.2009	Copy of the reply by the opposite party
Ex.A6	10.11.2009	Copy of letter issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT