Complaint filed on: 30-11-2009<br /> Disposed on: 29-06-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.2810/2009<br /> DATED THIS THE 29th JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant:- Sri.Arun.C. <br /> S/o. L.Chandrashekar,<br /> Aged about 27 years,<br /> No.23, 11th Cross, <br /> Puttanna lane,<br /> Ranasingh pet <br /> Bangalore-560 053 <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite party:- 1. M/s. Cholamandalam MS General<br /> Insurance Company Limited,<br /> Registered & Head office at<br /> “Dare House”, 2nd Floor,<br /> NSC Bose Road, Chennai-01<br /> Represented by its Manager,<br /> 2. Regional office at No.9/1,<br /> Ulsoor Road, Bangalore-42<br /> Represented by its Regional <br /> Manager Mr.Kishore.S. <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> The grievance of the complainant against Opposite parties [hereinafter called as Ops) in brief is that, he is the owner of Ford IKON car. That he had insured his car with OP and policy was in effect from 4-10-2008 to 3-10-2009. That on 31-8-2009 when he tried to start his car which was parked near his house in order to go to his office, the car did not start and he was unable to find out problem. Then he called car mechanic to inspect the car who told him that wiring kit was damaged due to rat bit. As a result Ignition coil and AC heater module was also damaged which needed to be replaced with new parts. Then he on the same day tried the inform to OP in order to claim the insurance amount for the said damage but he could not, then he on 1-9-2009 obtained new telephone number of OP and informed them about damage. He on the same day also made claim with OP for payment of damages has stated that damage was got estimated as Rs.72,000/-. OP sent a surveyor on 2-9-2009 but after inspection of the vehicle collected the claim form and submitted to the OP. That after lapse of 2 days also there was no response from OP. Then on 4-9-2009 when he called up customer care of OP Company no status information was given. Then again on second call he was informed that his claim cannot be processed. Despite several remainders, OP has not settled his claim and has stated that he got electrical wiring repaired by paying Rs.76,100/-. As the result of refusal by OP he is put to mental agony and stress and therefore has prayed for direction to OP to pay him Rs.76,100/- with interest, to repay the insurance amount of Rs.6263/- with interest and also to pay damage of Rs.2,00,000/- and award costs. <br /> <br /> 2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed his version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. OP further contending that all the claims of the complainant are concocted and stated that electrical break down is not covered by the policy. The vehicle must get damaged due to an accident by external visible means therefore the claim does not fall within the purview of the conditions of the policy as policy is subject to the terms and conditions. It is further stated that the damage to the vehicle is caused as the car was not maintained in good condition. The car is of 2000 model was in used for over 9 years parts also must have been worn out due to long use of the vehicle. Those parts attract depreciation due to usage. The complainant in order to get the worn out parts replaced, by inventing a theory of rat bite and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of RC, copy of policy, copy of spare parts bill and a copy of legal notice he got issued to the Ops. Ops also have produced a copy of policy and terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has also produced original spare parts bill and repair bill and we have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in not reimbursing the repair charges incurred which arose on account of rat bite? <br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: That the motor car of the complainant was insured with the OP and the policy was in effect from 4-10-2008 to 3-10-2009 is not in dispute. The complainant claims that on 31-8-2009, he tried starting his car which was parked near his house, but the car did not start and when he got it checked through mechanic, the mechanic told him wiring kit was damaged by rat bite and therefore the wiring kit, Ignition coil and AC Heater module were damaged requiring replacement with new parts. The complainant claim to had got the damage estimated as Rs.72,000/- and he intimated the same to OP and made a claim for reimbursement of that amount. But when OP refused reimbursement costs of replacement has made this claim. Whereas OP has contended that electrical break down is not covered by this policy. That the vehicle must have got damaged in an accident by external visible means therefore the claim does not fall within the purview of the conditions of the policy and has further contended that the vehicle was not maintained in good condition and it was of 2000 model used for over nine years and electrical parts were worn out due to long use. OP has not denied intimation by the complainant regarding damage to the electrical system of the car. But the complainant has not contradicted the statement of OP regarding the age of the vehicle and its usage for more then nine years. <br /> <br /> 7. Before we take up the claim of the complainant and the defence of OP, we shall refer to policy under which the value of the vehicle in question was declared at Rs.1,45,755/- as on 26-9-2008. Further the contention of OP that the electrical parts of the vehicle are subject to depreciation due to usage is not denied by the complainant and the complainant has also not come up, that electrical system of the car was replaced to at any time from the date of the vehicle purchased till the date of damage. Therefore necessarily and naturally use of the car for over nine years has caused deterioration because of its long use and depreciation has to be considered. OP though has contended that the electrical break down is not covered by policy but neither he nor his counsel brought to our notice such exclusion in the condition of the policy. Therefore their contention that the electrical break down not covered by policy cannot be accepted. Thus the further contention that the vehicle must have got damaged in an accident by external visible means do not also stand to justification. Because rat biting, in our view is one of such damage by external visible means which fall within the terms and conditions for considering reimbursement of repair charges. <br /> <br /> 8. The learned counsel appearing for OP by producing photograph of the dismantled electrical wiring of the car submitted that before the surveyor could inspect wiring system of the car, the complainant got wiring system removed and kept them aside which prevented OP from assessing the cause for distruction in the system, which is not denied by the complainant. The complainant has contended that he had parked his car near his house and on the next day, when he tried to start it, it did not start which exhibits that the complainant had not parked his car in a secured and safe place as warranted by clause-4 of condition of the policy and therefore it implies that the complainant did not take reasonable steps to safe-guard the vehicle insured from such loss or damage and the complainant also did not provide the opportunity to OP for getting the cause for electrical system distruction assessed and further considering that the vehicle was manufactured in 2000 year and it is used for more then nine years and also declare value of the vehicle in the policy beside considering depreciation because of ware and tare the complainant will not be entitled for reimbursement of entire expenditure of Rs.72,000/- as such the complainant would be entitled for compensation on non-standard basis and we therefore considering the above aspects, we have referred above find it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- by way of reimbursement which would meet the end of justice, with the result, we answer Point No-1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, OP shall pay interest on the amount at 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> OP shall also pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th June 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />