CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 04/08/2011
CC / 129 / 2011
Moideen Kutty. E,
Eachayil House,
Ambalapara Post,
Ottapalam Taluk,
Palakkad Dt. - Complainant
(BY ADV. K.V. SUJITH)
Vs
The Manager,
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
570, Nigaum Cross Road,
Next to Royal Industrial Estate,
Wadala (W), Mumbai – 400 031 - Opposite party
(BY ADV. ULLAS SUDHAKARAN)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
The case of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant has insured his vehicle KL-51/9007 Tourist Bus with the opposite party vide package policy on 25/08/2010 and the number of the policy is 2209702340000259 for the period from 25/08/2010 to 24/08/2011. As per the term of the policy the opposite party has assured to give own damage loss to the complainant's vehicle and as a consideration for the same the complainant has paid Rs.26,777/- as premium and the premium certificate for the same was also issued to the complainant by opposite party, as per the policy, the insured declared value is Rs. 10,00,000/-.
On 24th February 2011, the said vehicle was proceeding to Manjeri from Trivandrum and while giving clearance to a Lorry at about 4 am it hit on an electric post and caused damages to the vehicle. The accident was reported to opposite party and the vehicle was taken to authorized service centre and repairs were done at Kollam Akash Body works, Kollam. The complainant spent an amount of Rs. 1,37,400/- for the purpose. Opposite party has deputed their Surveyor and he assessed the loss and noted damage caused to the vehicle. The vehicle was of the year 2008 model and was in good condition. The original cash vouchers were submitted to the opposite party for claim settlement.
On receiving all necessary documents the opposite party has paid only Rs. 45,519/-. The amount fixed by the opposite party is without any basis. The act of the opposite party caused heavy monitory loss and mental agony to the complainant.
So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.91,881/- being the balance amount payable for repairing the vehicle and Rs. 10,000/- with 12% of interest as compensation for mental agony and cost.
Opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed version.
Opposite party admits that complainant had insured his vehicle bearing registration No. KL-51/9007 with the opposite party under package policy numbered 2209702340000259 for the period 25/08/2010 to 24/08/2011. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.26,777/- as premium and the declared value of the said vehicle was 10,00,000/-. The complainant had submitted a claim form claiming reimbursement and the opposite party had paid a sum of Rs.45,519/- based on the survey report dated 18/03/2011 filed by the approved independent surveyor.
The complainant is not entitled to get compensation for the monitory loss sustained by him to the parts covered under IMT 23 as no additional premium was paid by the complainant as IMT 23 is not endorsed in the policy issued to the complainant. The surveyor had deducted the compulsorily deductible under IMT 21,22 and 23 and depreciation as per policy condition and the opposite party liability had arrived at a sum of Rs. 45,519.08 of the total bill amount of Rs.1,09,340/-. The opposite party had rightly paid Rs. 45,519.08 to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits and Ext. A1 to A4 series marked on the side of the complainant and Ext. B1 to B2 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Witness was examined as DW1.
Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
The complainant claimed for the reimbursement of the amount spent by him towards the expenses for repairing his Tourist Bus bearing registration number KL-51/9007 which got damaged in an accident. The opposite party repudiated a part of his claim without any basis. The claim made by the complainant is Rs. 1,37,400/- and opposite party paid only Rs. 45,519/-.
Opposite party admits the fact that complainant had insured his vehicle bearing registration number KL-51/9007 with the opposite party vide policy number 2209702340000259 for the period 25/08/2010 to 24/08/2011. It is also admits that complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 26,777/- as premium. After getting the claim application opposite party paid a sum of Rs. 45,519/- to the complainant in the basis of the survey report filed by the approved independent surveyor. Complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,37,400/- Ext. A4 series document shows that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs. 1,09,340/- for repairing the insured vehicle. The vehicle of the complainant is 2008 model. As per Ext. B1 policy the percentage of depreciation to be calculated for metal parts is 15% and for rubber and fibre parts is 50% and compulsorily deductible amount is 1500/-. The glass parts are not subject to depreciation. According to B1 document the complainant is not entitled to get compensation for the amount spent by him towards the parts covered under IMT 23 as no additional premium was paid by the complainant under IMT 23. No endorsement is made in the A2 document to that effect. Lamps, tyres/tubes, mud guards, bonnet/side parts, bumpers, head light and paint work are come under IMT 23.
So that we cannot find much difference in the calculation made by the surveyor except in the labour charge.
The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as labour charge. Ext. A4 series reveals the same. But the surveyor assessed only an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as the balance amount of labour charges is towards painting which is not covered. But the Ext. A4 series does not reveal that the labour charge deducting Rs. 2500/- is for painting purpose. Even if the painting is excluded as per B1, for repairing and replacing the part of the vehicle Rs. 2500/- as labour charge is not suffecient. We seem that Rs. 2500/- will be sufficient for painting the damaged area.
From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- being the balance amount payable for the repairs done to the vehicle and Rs. 2000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of January, 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1 –Certificate of Registration (copy) of complainant's vehicle bearing No.Kl- 51/9007.
Ext. A2 – Passenger carrying vehicle package policy certificate cum policy schedule (copy) issued by the opposite party.
Ext. A3 – Letter (copy) sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ext. A4– Estimate (original) dated 25/02/2011, Estimate (original) dated 10/03/2011, original of cash bills (2 Nos.) dated 10/03/2011, original of cash bills (2 Nos.) dated 08/03/2011, original of cash bill dated 16/03/2011 paid by the complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext. B1 – Passenger carrying vehicle certificate cum policy schedule issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. B2 - Survey report
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1 – G. Rajesh
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.
