PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of September 2011
Filed on :29/10/2009
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.582/2009
Between
Ajil Kumar, : Complainant
6/624, Manayathu house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Vengola, Valayanchirangara P.O., road, Muvattupuzha)
Perumbavoor.
And
1. Managing Director, : Opposite parties
M/s. United India Insurance Co. (By Adv. Lakshmanan T.J.
Ltd., Regd. & Head Office, Penta Queen, Padivattom,
24, Whites Road, Chennai-600 014. Kochin-24)
2. Manager, M/s. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, Vadakkanethil
Towers, Perumbavoor-683 542.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant had taken a policy of the opposite parties for his vehicle for the period from 22-10-2008 to21-10-2009. The sum insured was Rs. 2,90,000/- since the vehicle being a 2001 model. The vehicle met with an accident on 03-06-2009 and the same was totally damaged. It was taken to focuz body workshop. They have estimated the cost of repairing the vehicle at Rs. 4,25,000/-. A claim was lodged with the 2nd opposite party on the next day itself. The surveyor appointed by the 2nd opposite party conducted the spot survey and submitted a survey report. Again another surveyor was appointed by them. But the claim was not settled so far. The act of the opposite parties to delay the settlement beyond 60 days amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,90,000/- the sum insured which is the market value of the vehicle along with interest together with costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.
2. Version of the opposite parties.
The complainant is not having any cause of action against the opposite parties. The policy to the complainant’s vehicle was issued for the period from 22-10-2008 to 21-10-2009. After getting the intimation with regard to the accident of the vehicle the opposite party had engaged the surveyor Mr. M.O. Poulose who had done the spot survey. In his report he had clearly stated that the internal damages are not ascertained and for assessing the said damages the vehicle has to be dismantled. The complainant had submitted a claim form before the company subsequent to the spot survey. The insurance company had engaged a senior surveyor Mr. N.E. Ithappiri to ascertain the damage and assess the loss. The said surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Thereafter the insurance company requested the complainant to furnish the details as required by the company. But the complainant was not ready to perform his part and to co-operate with the company to process the claim application. The company did not repudiate or close the claim of the complainant. They only sought some clarifications and the said action of the opposite parties cannot be termed as deficiency in service on their part. There was no total damage to the insured vehicle as stated in the complaint. It is a settled law that the settlement of the claim can be considered only after getting the survey report and other relevant documents. In this case the company received the survey report on 06-11-2009 and by that time the complainant had approached this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are ready to consider the claim of the complainant as assessed by the surveyor subject to clarifications as requested by the company in their letter dated 06-11-2009 and subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
3. The complainant and the opposite parties represented through counsel. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to A3 were marked. The opposite parties did not adduce oral evidence. Exts. B1 to B5 were marked on their side. Thereafter, we have heard the respective counsel.
4. The points that arose for consideration are:-
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount as per survey report?
ii. Compensation and costs if any?
5. The complainant contented that the claim application submitted by him has not been considered by the opposite party. The opposite parties contented that they neither repudiated nor closed the claim of the complainant due to the reason that the complainant was not ready to submit clarifications as requested by them.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of the policy. Ext. A1 is the copy of policy and Ext. A2 is the copy of claim form. Ext. A3 is the quotation. The complainant contented that the vehicle was totally damaged. During cross examination, the complainant deposed that he has not produced any document to show that the vehicle was totally damaged. He also deposed that he has no authority to say about Ext. A3Quotation issued by the workshop. Moreover he agreed that Ext. B1 letter issued by him. In which it is stated that he agreed to settle the claim for Rs. 1,40,000/-. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted a decision rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sudkhdham India Pvt. Ltd. 1 (2011) CPJ 112 (NC). In that case the Hon’ble National Commission allowed the complaint. Since three surveyor’s were appointed but none of them submitted report hence the claim could be not settled. The above decision is not applicable in this case since two surveyors were appointed and both of them were filed reports which were marked as Ext. B4 and B5 respectively. The opposite party contented that the insurance claim of the complainant is not processed since Ext. B5 report was filed after the institution of the present complaint. The complainant vehemently disputed the veracity of the Ext. B4 and B5 survey reports, the reports were marked subject to objection on his part. But he did not adduce any evidence to repudiate or reject those reports. The opposite parties could not examine the surveyor who prepared Ext. B5 report since the surveyor is no more. The Honble Supreme Court in Sri. Venkateswar Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (CP) 2009 CTJ 11 99 held that “insurance surveyor/surveyors are appointed under insurance Act. Their reports are to be given due importance and there should be sufficient ground for not agreeing with the assessment made by them.” In the aforementioned reasons we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim amount in accordance of Ext. B5 surveyor report.
7. Accordingly we partly allow the complaint as follows.
The opposite parties shall pay insurance claim amount to the complainant as per Ext. B5 surveyor report with 9% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of September 2011.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
