IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010.

Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt.C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No.25/09 (Filed on 27.02.2009)

Between:

1.     V.M. Mathew,

Vengazhiyil Ju Villa,

Niranam Village,

Thiruvalla Taluk.

2.     Marykutty Mathew,

          -do.  –do.

(By Adv. Sunitha. K.K)                                                   .....     Complainants.

And:

1.     Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Changanassery.

2.     Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Thiruvalla.

(By Adv. P.D. Varghese)

3.     Kairali Ford,

MGF Buildings,

M.C. Road, Nagampadam,

Kottayam.

(By Adv. D.Radhakrishnan Nair)                                      .....     Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from Forum.

                   2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The 1^st complainant is the registered owner of a Ford Icon Car bearing Reg.No.KL-03L/4343and the 2^nd complainant is the wife of the 1^st complainant who is the custodian of the vehicle in the absence of the 1^st complainant.  The 1^st complainant is working at abroad.  The above said vehicle was insured with 1^st opposite party vide policy No.442401/31/2009/7317.  On 6.1.09 during the travel while the vehicle was stopped the road side at Elippod Junction an unidentified vehicle hit on the backside of the vehicle and the vehicle got damaged.  The above said accident was recorded in the J.D. entry of Thiruvananthapuram City Traffic Police.  The vehicle was damaged during the coverage period and the vehicle was repaired by the 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party had received an amount of Rs.25,000/- as the repairing charges of the vehicle.  The complainant has filed a claim before the 2^nd opposite party for getting the repairing charges from the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties have not taken any steps to settle the claim of the complainant.  Hence the complainant’s filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to pay the repairing charges of the vehicle along with interest and cost of the complainant.  The complainant prays for granting the relief.

                   3. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have filed the version raising the following contentions:  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  An own damage claim was reported to these opposite parties through 3^rd opposite party the repairs of the vehicle in respect of the above vehicle on 21.1.09.  As per the intimation the alleged accident took place on 6.1.09.  On the rec eipt of the intimation the 2^nd opposite party had deputed a surveyor for conducting survey of the damaged vehicle.  As such the surveyor had filed a report.  As per the surveyor’s report only an amount of Rs.4,341/- is to be paid as the damages to the vehicle after complying with all legal formalities and submission of the documents required by the 2^nd opposite party.  On receiving the claim form through 3^rd opposite party, while verifying, it was found that the claim form was not properly filled up and important information for settling the claim is conspicuously absent. Moreover the claim was submitted after a lapse of 15 days after the occurrence of the alleged accident, which is in violation of the policy conditions.  Since there was inordinate delay in reporting the claim, the 2^nd opposite party wrote a letter on 29.1.09 to the 1^st complainant stating that the delay in reporting the claim had caused prejudice to the 2^nd opposite party and the same is in violation of policy condition.  But for an amicable settlement a claim form was sent to the 1^st complainant for duly filling up the same with all necessary details for fufrther action.  But after the receipt of the claim form by the 1^st complainant, he did not return the claim form with the required details.  This has caused much prejudice to 2^nd opposite party in properly processing the claim.  As per the surveyor’s report the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.4,341/- only as assessed loss only after submission of documents required.  The claim of the complainant is under process hence the complaint is premature.  The complainants have no cause of action to prefer this complaint, as the claim is not repudiated by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in the complaint.  In the circumstances, this opposite parties has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   4. 3^rd opposite party has filed the version stating as follows: The complainant against the 3^rd opposite party is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  3^rd opposite party is not a necessary party in this case.  The complainant’s damaged vehicle was repaired for an amount of Rs.23,818/- and the same was given by the complainant.  The complainant’s vehicle has valid coverage at the time of accident hence the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to pay the repairing charges to the complainant.  The complainants are not entitled to get any reliefs from the 3^rd opposite party, the allegations are against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  In the circumstances, 3^rd opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against them.

                   5. The points for consideration in this complaint are:-

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint?

(3)   Reliefs and Costs?

           6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the 2^nd complainant and the Ext..A1 to A4 marked from the side of the complainant.  For the opposite parties, the surveyor has been examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

          7. The complainant’s case is that the complainant’s insured vehicle met with a road accident and sustained damages and it was repaired by 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.23,818/-.  They have filed a claim before the opposite parties for getting the repairing charges from 2^nd opposite party.  But the opposite parties have not taken any steps to settle the claim, hence this complaint.

          8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, 2^nd complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the basis of proof affidavit filed by her.  Ext.A1 is the copy of insurance policy certificate.  Ext.A2 is the copy of G.D entry dated 8.1.09 from City Traffic Police, Thiruvananthapuram.  Ext.A3 is the repair bill of the vehicle issued by the 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.A3(a) is the Interactive Reception check-sheet along with the Ext.A3 bill.  Ext.A4 is the copy of the R.C. Book of the complainant.  Opposite parties counsel has been cross-examined PW1. 

          9. Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that there is a delay of 15 days for informing the accident.  Complainant had filed a claim form through 3^rd opposite party and it was not properly filled up.  For an amicable settlement of the claim a new claim form was sent to the complainant.  But it was not returned by the complainant with required details.  The surveyor had assessed an amount of Rs.4,341/-  as loss of damages.  But the complainant is entitled to get the amount only after the submission of required documents.

          10. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties 1 and 2, one witness for opposite party, the surveyor who assessed the damages of the vehicle has adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked.  Ext.B1 is the survey report prepared by DW1.  Ext.B2 is the photographs (8 Nos.) of the damaged vehicle.  Complainants’ counsel cross-examined DW1.

          11. 3^rd opposite party contended that there is no allegation raised against them hence they are not liable to compensate any loss of the complainant.  The vehicle had valid insurance at the time of accident hence the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of 3^rd opposite party.

          12. On going through the evidences in this case, the materials on records clearly shows that the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages.  The damages was repaired by the 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.23,818/-.  The opposite parties have admitted the coverage of the policy and the claim form filed by the complainant.  According to the opposite parties, the claim form filed by the complainant is not duly filled up, with the details necessary for processing the claim and necessary documents required for processing the claim.  At the time of cross examination, PW1 stated that “G.D entry am{Xw t]mcm F¶v ImWn¨v 1w 2w FXrI£nII¯v \ÂInbncp¶p”.  Further, “repairing billmbn repairing charges \ÂIWsa¶p ]dªv insurance company kao]n¨n«nÔ.  The opposite parties contended that the complainant has not produced the repairing bill of the damaged insured vehicle hence they cannot process the claim.  It is the duty of the owner of the insured vehicle to file the claim form properly along with sufficient documents necessary for settling the claim.  Without sufficient documents, the opposite parties cannot settle the claim.  The opposite parties have demanded to furnish fresh claim form and sufficient documents before them.  But the complainant failed to do so.  In the circumstances, we find any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.  Without complying the necessary formalities for processing the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The complaint is baseless and is not sustainable; hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  There is no deficiency in service alleged against the 3^rd opposite party hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the 3^rd opposite party.

          13. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 2^nd day of June, 2010.

                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                                               C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                     (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)            :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)              :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Marykutty Mathew

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Photocopy of insurance policy certificate. 

A2     :  Copy of G.D entry dated 8.1.09 issued by the City Traffic Police, 

             Thiruvananthapuram. 

A3     :   Repair bill dated 5.2.09 issued by the 3^rd opposite party

              to the complainant. 

A3(a) :   Interactive Reception check-sheet issued by the 3td opposite party to the 

              complainant. 

A4     :   Photocopy of the R.C. Book of the complainant.  

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 :  Anilkumar.V

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :   Survey Report dated 17.2.09 issued by the surveyor V. Anil kumar.

B2     :   Photographs (8 Nos.) of the damaged vehicle.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                      Senior Superintendent

Copy to:   (1)  V.M. Mathew, Vengazhiyil Ju Villa, Niranam Village,

            Thiruvalla Taluk.

           (2)  The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Changanassery.

(3)   Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvalla.

(4)   Kairali Ford, MGF Buildings, M.C. Road, Nagampadam, Kottayam.

(5)   The stock file.