ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The Complainant is the insured of the household items having policy No.760604/48/06/32/ 00000990. Accordingly the household equipments cover under the risk of the insurance and it was renewed from time to time remitting the premium. The Complainant had not claimed for any benefit under the scheme. The refrigerator belonged to the Complainant become non operative and the Complaint was informed to the Opposite Party. Filled up claim form was also given to the Opposite Party. For the repair of the defective refrigerator quotation was called for and a mechanic was entrusted as per the quotations. The Opposite Party was given consent for the repair of the refrigerator. The Surveyor of the Insurance Company made an inspection visit to assess the defects and the facts with respect to the non function was also noted by the Surveyor. The Complainant spend Rs.4,765/- for the repair charges and the receipt of the<br /> (Contd........2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> payment made for the repair was also produced in the Insurance Company. After one week of repair the Insurance Company informed the Complainant that they absolved from the risk of liability due to the negligent handling of the refrigerator. The Complainant prayed for refund of the repair charges of Rs.4,765/- by the Opposite Party and along with the cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The insurance of the refrigerator is admitted by the Insurance Company. The insurance cover belonged to the householders insurance. The general conditions No.3 of the policy specify that the insured usually take reasonable steps to safe guard the property insured against any loss or damage in exercise of reasonable care. As per the exceptional clause the Opposite Party will not responsible for any liability in respect of loss or damages caused by the depreciation or wear and tear. The claim submitted on 12.02.2007 the actual loss amount Rs.2,765/-. Apart from that the Surveyor of the Opposite Party reported <br /> that the damages caused to the freezer compartment of the refrigerator and it was due to non use of the refrigerator for long time. The material inside of the freezer rested and the coils were damaged and it was not working due to gas leak. The reasonable care and caution was shown by the Complainant. The claim was rejected and the same was informed to the Complainant also. The complaint is filed without any benefit and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. <br /> <br /> The points in considerations are:<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> 2.Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> Point No.1:<br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the true copy of the quotations received<br /> (Contd .......... 3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> from Techno Coil Refrigerator, the amount received towards the repair charges in Ext.A1 is Rs.4,765/-. Ext.A2 is the true copy of the cash bill. The repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Party is specified in Ext.A3 the reason shown for the rejection of the claim is explained in clause 3. It states that as per the report of the surveyor the loss was “due to negligence in maintaining the item by the insured”. The Manager of the Insurance Company is examined as OPW1. According to him, the Surveyor who was appointed to inspect and report the defective refrigerator, filed statement but it is a confidential report and cannot be disclosed and the Surveyor is not examined to bring forth the evidence. According to the Opposite Party the reason for the non function of the refrigerator is negligence in maintenance. The ordinary wear and tear does not cover the policy as per the conditions of the policy how ever the insurance of the household items were done in good faith without any inspection. The Ext.A3, the letter sent to the Complainant does not show the reason of wear and tear for the rejection of the claim. <br /> The Opposite Party further deposed that in addition to Ext.A3 other letter was also sent to the Complainant. Ext.B1 is the provisional policy schedule produced by the Opposite Party along <br /> with the conditions and exceptions attached to the policy. The Complainant paid the premium of Rs.398/- which was on 26.11.2007. The contention of the Opposite Party that the refrigerator became non functional due to the wear and tear is no more intimated to the Complainant. Instead as per the letter informed the reason shown is negligence in maintaining the item by the insured. The rejection of the claim without genuine reasons cannot be considered and it is a deficiency in service. The point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:<br /> The Complainant produced quotations and receipt of the amount paid towards the repair charges and it is Rs.4,765/-. The Opposite Party did not produce any documents to show extent of repair charges. It is to be presumed that the Complainant spent Rs.4,765/- for the<br /> (Contd .......... 4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> <br /> repair of the refrigerator. The Opposite Party cannot disown from the liability of meeting the repair charges. The Opposite Party has to refund Rs.4765/- to the Complainant along with Rs.500/- towards cost.<br /> <br /> In the result, the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.4,765/- (Rupees Four thousand Seven hundred and Sixty Five only) towards the repair charges of the refrigerator to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) within one month from the date of this order. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Party the complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of law.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 13th day of February 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witnesses for Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Haridas. Complainant.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> OPW1. K.P. Raghavan. Manager, New India Assurance Company.<br /> OPW2. Jayanth Kumar. Refrigerator repairer. <br /> <br /> (Contd .......... 5)<br /> <br /> - 5 -<br /> <br /> <br /> Exhibits for Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Copy of quotation. dt:08.02.2007.<br /> A2. Copy of bill. dt:19.02.2007.<br /> A3. Claim repudiation letter. dt:15.03.2007.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> B1. True copy of Provisional Policy <br /> Schedule. dt:26.11.2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />