By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-
Brief of the complaint:- The complainant insured his car KL 18 D 5301 with the opposite party. The policy is valid from 30.01.2009 to 29.01.2010. The complainant's vehicle met with an accident at Puthusserikadavu on 07.08.2009 and sustained substantial damages to the vehicle. The accident was reported to Padinharathara police and did G.D entry also made in time and the accident informed to the opposite party. Thereafter the vehicle taken to Autotech. The vehicle was inspected by the authorized surveyor of the opposite party. After that the complainant preferred a claim form with all supportive documents and furnished all required information on 12.01.2010 through the complainant's authorized representative Mr Haris and the complainant himself approached the opposite party on several times to get the claim amount. But he is not received any amount so on 10.12.2010 he sent a lawyer notice calling immediate attention in the matter of the complainant's claim. But there was no reply or any response from the opposite party. Thereafter also the complainant and his representative approached the opposite party for getting the claim amount. All these times the opposite party told them that they are processing the claim. The inordinate delay in processing and settling the claim caused much inconveniences, sufferings and mental agony to the complainant. Now complainant lost confidence on the opposite party. The non payment of the claim amount is the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence it is prayed to pass an order directing opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.39,082/- towards the claim amount with interest at the rate of 18% and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the compensation along with cost.
2. The opposite party appeared and filed their version. In the version the opposite party admitted that the vehicle No. KL 18 D 5301 is insured with the opposite party from 30.01.2009 to 29.01.2010, and the allegation that the complainant's vehicle met with an accident on 07.08.2009 and that there was a G.D entry at Padinharathara Police over all matters to be proved by the complainant. The opposite party denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.39,082/-. The complainant had informed the opposite party on 12.01.2010 regarding the accident into his vehicle on 07.08.2009. So the accident reported to the opposite party after a span of five months. It is a violation of policy condition. As per the policy condition the accident has to be informed to the opposite party immediately. This opposite party on intimation from the complainant on 12.01.2010 immediately appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. Since there was delay of more than five months the surveyor is sent a letter on 13.02.2010 seeking explanation for the undue delay in intimating this matter to the opposite party. But no reply received from the complainant within a reasonable time. Hence opposite party was unable to process and proceed with the claim. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
3. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1:- To prove complainant's case his P.A holder Mr. Haris filed his proof affidavit. He is also filed Exts.A1 to A10 Series documents. Ext.A1 is the power of Attorney executed by the complainant in favour of Mr Haris, S/o Ali Haji, Kombi House, Puthusserikadavu, Kuppadiathara Village. Ext.A2 is the copy of the Registration Certificate of KL 18 D 5301. Ext.A3 is the copy of the policy. Ext.A4 is the certificate issued by the Sub Inspector, Padinharathara. It is stated in Ext.A4 that the vehicle KL 18 D 5301 Indica Car met with an accident at Puthusserikadavu on 07.08.2009 at 10.30 hrs and the same was entered in G.D and on enquiry it is seen that while the complainant was riding the vehicle from Bank kunnu to Puthusserikadavu collied with an Autorickshaw and skidded from the road and hit with a coconut tree nearby the road and sustained substantial damages to the car. Ext.A5 series are the copies of lawyer notice to the opposite party, postal receipt and acknowledgment cards. Ext.A6 is the copy of Passport and Ext.A8 is copy of the letter sent to the opposite party by the complainant. Ext.A9 is the copy of claim form submitted by the complainant to the opposite party.
5. To Prove opposite party's case Mr. Shanoop. S, HDFC, FRGO General Insurance Company, filed his proof affidavit. Mr. Ranjish Puthukudy, Insurance Surveyor is examined as OPW1. Ext.B1and Ext.B2 series are marked to prove their case. Ext.B1 is the copy of the policy. Ext.B2 series are the copy of claim form. In this case the insurance, accident etc are not in dispute but only contention of the opposite party is that the matter of accident was not reported to the opposite party immediately. Anyhow claim form is accepted by them and they sent their surveyor to ascertain the damages. At the time of inspection the surveyor called for the explanation regarding the delay from the complainant Riyas. The case of the complainant is that he was in Gulf that is why he could not filed claim form before the opposite party in time. On perusing Ext.A1 it is seen that the complainant is in Gulf and he executed the Power of Attorney in Gulf. So after getting the claim form non payment of insurance claim is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Even though the complainant has claimed that he has spent Rs.39,082/- for repairing the vehicle. No bill is produced by the complainant to substantiate their claim. They have not taken any action to produce the document by opposite party. Any how Ext.X1 document is called for by the Forum and marked as Ext.X1 series. Ext.X1 series is the survey report submitted by the Ranjish Puthukkudi, Insurance Surveyor. In Ext.X1 he assessed Rs.10,760/- to repair the vehicle. In the report he stated that the date of accident is on 07.08.2009 and the same is reported to the insurer on 12.01.2010 delay of more than 150 days. The insured stated that he was in abroad, hence delayed to intimate the claim. So payment of liability is subject to the description of insurer. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.10,760/- with 10% interest from 08.08.2011 till the payment is made from the opposite parties. He is also entitled to get Rs.1,000/- as cost. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,760/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Only) with 10% interest from 08.08.2011 till the payment is made. Opposite party is also directed to give Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of this litigation. This is to be complied by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 30th May 2012.
Date of Filing:08.08.2011.
