D.O.F:17/02/2021
D.O.O:30/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.45/2021
Dated this, the 30th day of March 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Mohammed Sadath.C.A, aged 25 years
S/o. C.A Abbas,
Residing at PerumbalaKadavu Road,
Naimarmoola, : Complainant
Post Vidyanagar,
Kasaragod Village, Kasaragod Taluk,
Kasaragod District, PIN- 671 123
(Adv. K.K. Mohammed Shafi)
And
Liberty General Insurance Limited,
10th Floor, Tower A,
Peninsula Business Park,
Ganapatrao, Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, : Opposite Party
Mumbai, PIN- 400013
Represented by its Manager
(Adv. C.V. Narayanan)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed for compensation alleging service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
The fact of this case in brief is that the complainant’s car No.KL07 BY 1947, having validly insured with Policy No.201150020319700105101001 of the opposite party, met with accident on 06.12.2020 and got damaged. The complainant was proceeding to Naimarmoola Junction from his house and at a turning, he lost control and the vehicle hit on the side wall and thereby got damaged. The vehicle was taken by towing, to the garage by name ‘The Mechanic’ at Uppala. The complainant submitted claim before the opposite party, vide claim No.500203201120110075701, with all formalities, but the same is repudiated on 08.01.2021, stating that the claim is wrong. The repudiation of the claim is service deficiency and unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. The complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ -, towards compensation on that ground. The vehicle is still in the garage and due to lack of sufficient money the complainant could not carry out the repair work. The opposite party ought to have paid the insurance amount without delay. The vehicle was surveyed and the report is in the custody of the opposite party. As per the report the loss is estimated at Rs.1,78,460/. The opposite party is liable to pay the said amount for the repairing of the vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle was used for domestic and household purposes and due the illegal act of the opposite party, the complainant and his family are constrained to depend on other facilities for their travelling. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,81,960/- including the amount estimated by the surveyor and the towing charge of Rs.3,500/- spent by the complainant along with Rs.2,00,000/-towards compensation and cost.
The notice sent to the opposite party is duly served and they entered in appearance through their counsel, who filed written version.
As per the version of the Opposite party the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
The opposite party admit that the complainant has insured his car with them. But the averments in 4th and8thpara of the complainant are false and hence denied as they are fabricated for conveniences and to attract sympathy. The complainant concocted a false story only to grab unlawful benefits. The claim is repudiated since it was contrary to the conditions of the policy. The person who had driven the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a valid license. The complaint is built up on flimsy ground without basis. The loss estimated is baseless. There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite party No.1 and therefore the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
As per the order in the IA 208/2021 filed by the complainant, an expert commission has been appointed to inspect the vehicle and file report. Accordingly, the expert commission inspected the vehicle and filed its report dated 17.11.2021.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext. A 1 to Ext. A6and Ext.C1 are marked.
The Ext - A1 is the copy of the RC, Ext. A 2 is the Insurance policy dated18.01.2020, Ext A3 is the Repudiation letter dated 08.01.2021 issued by the opposite party, Ext. A4 is the Estimate of loss of the vehicle, Ext.A5 is the bill of towing, dated.29.07-2020, Ext.C1 is the Report of expert commission.
From the side of the Opposite party no oral evidence is adduced, but certain documents are produced which are marked as Ext B1 to B6. The Ext.B1 is Policy document dated 21.01.2020, Ext B2 is the Repudiation letter, Ext B3 is the Postal Receipt, Ext.B4 is the Claim Form, Ext B5 series are Aadhar, Driving License, RC etc. of the complainant, Ext B6 is the Survey report.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of all or any of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the main case of the complainant is that his car got damaged in an accident, during the validity period of insurance policy, but his claim is repudiated without valid reason and the same is service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party admit that the complainant has insured his car with them. But the opposite party deny the story of accident and argue that all are fabricated for the convenience and to attract sympathy. The complainant concocted a false story only to grab unlawful benefits. The claim is repudiated since it was contrary to the conditions of the policy. The complaint is built up on flimsy ground without basis. There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite party No.1 and therefore the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
The expert commissioner appointed in this case filed its report dated 17.11.2021, which is marked as Ext.C1. The expert commissioner, who is the RTO Kasaragod, would report that he had inspected the spot of accident and conducted an enquiry about the accident and it is revealed that the accident was genuine. The carrier plate holding studs detached and carrier plate along with rear LH wheelthrown out of the vehicle, the vehicle went out of control, turn to RH side and front of the vehicle hit on a wall and concrete slab and sustained damage. It is also reported that the extent of damage found on the vehicle is tallying with the cause of accident noted in the claim form except that it’s not because of tyre bursting, but detaching rear LH carrier plate along with the tyre.
The opposite party argue that the claim of the complainant is repudiated since it was contrary to the conditions of the policy. But the opposite party did not reveal anything as to which policy condition is contradicted. The insurance policy is admitted. The date of accident was within the validity period of the insurance policy. The opposite party contented in the version that the person who had driven the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a valid license. The Ext.B5 series produced by the opposite party consists of a copy of Driving license of the complainant also. The opposite party has no case that the car was driven by some other person. Also the opposite party did not adduce any evidence to prove that the vehicle was not damaged in any accident.
Even though the opposite party raised some suggestions during the cross examination of the PW1,to the effect that the damages were created with the help of the workshop men, so as to grab money from the opposite party under the false pretext of accident, they did not adduce reliable evidence to prove such a case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that the vehicle was not damaged in an accident and the opposite party was liable to pay insurance amount on account of that. The denial of the insurance benefit without valid reason amounts to service deficiency on the part of the opposite party, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. Therefore the complainant is entitled for compensation.
The complainant submits that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.1,81,960/- including the amount estimated by the surveyor and the towing charge of Rs.3,500/- spent by him along with Rs.2,00,000/-towards compensation and cost.
Regarding the damages the expert commissioner did not make any assessment. He states that the actual loss sustained may be get assessed by an independent licensed insurance surveyor/ loss assessor as they are the authority to assess loss of the vehicle.
Here the complainant produced an estimation prepared by the local work shop men as Ext.A4 to a tune of Rs.1,78,460/-. This commission is not inclined to rely on that estimation as the credibility of its author is doubtful. Another document available is the Ext.B6, the survey report. Admittedly it is prepared by licensed surveyor after inspection of the vehicle. Even though neither of the parties is interested in it, in the absence of any other reliable document, this commission hold that Ext.B6 can be taken as the basis for fixing the compensation. As per the Ext.B6, the amount of final payment is assessed to be Rs.70,340/- So that amount is fixed in this case. Regarding the compensation towards mental agony and hardships the complainant estimate an amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. But he did not produce any evidence to prove such a huge loss. This commission is of the view that an amount of Rs.30,000/-would be a reasonable amount of compensation in this case.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.70,340/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Forty only) towards insurance benefit, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 17.02.2021, the date of complaint, to the date of payment along with Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards litigation cost.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this Judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Copy of the RC
A2: Insurance Policy dated 18/01/2020
A3: Repudiation letter dated 08/01/2021
A4: Estimate of loss of the vehicle
A5: Bill of towing
A6: Driving Licence
B1: Policy Document
B2: Repudiation letter
B3: Postal Receipt
B4: Claim form
B5: Aadhar, Driving Licence, RC of Complainant
B6: Survey report
C1: Expert Commission report
Witness Cross examine
PW1: Mohammed Sadath.C.A,
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
