A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant had taken an office protection shield policy of the opposite party for the period from 26-09-2007 to 25-09-2008. While so, an HP pavilion Laptop insured with the opposite party was damaged on 19-02-2009. It was entrusted with the service centre and they said that the defect was due to the damage caused to the LCD or mother board. Thereafter a claim was lodged before the opposite party. The surveyor deputed by the opposite party. Failed to find out the defect since he is not having sufficient knowledge regarding laptop. Thereafter he brought another technician. But the surveyor failed to file any report for a longtime. After the repeated enquires of the complainant, they have given the reply stating that the non functioning of the Laptop was due to aging and end of life of mother board. The allegation of wear and tear, aging and end of life of mother board are baseless and unsustainable. The defect of the laptop occurred within two years from the date of purchase. The manufacturer has given three years warranty for the laptop purchased by him. In this case, the said laptop was purchased from abroad and so the warranty is not applicable here. The complainant is entitled for the claim amount Rs. 35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of claim till realization. The opposite party was liable to settle the claim within two months from the date of claim as per the IRDA guidelines. That was not observed in this case and so the complainant is entitled for Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for the inordinate delay in deciding the claim. Hence this complaint.
2. Version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
The opposite party admits the issuance of the office protection shield insurance policy for the period from 26-09-2007 to 25-092008. On receipt the claim application the opposite party deputed a surveyor to survey and asses the damage of the laptop. On the basis of the survey report the claim has been rejected by the opposite party stating that the amount is not payable since the claim falls under exclusion clause No. E.7.3 of the policy condition. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Ext. A1 was marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Ext. X1 was also marked. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. Points that enunciated for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get insurance claim from the opposite party ?
ii. Compensation and costs ?
5. Point No. i. The insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party by Ext. A1 letter dated 28-05-2009. The reason for rejection of the claim as per the letter reads as follows:
“As per exclusion no:E.7.3 the Company shall not be liable for damage due to or consequent upon wear and tear. In view of the findings of the surveyor and the cited exclusion we are not in a position to settle your claim. We regret the inconvenience caused to you in this regard.”
6. In Ext. X1 the surveyor appointed by the opposite party came to the following conclusions.
“From the observation it is obvious that the Mother Board and LCD panel does not seem to be affected by any physical damage or damage due to surge voltage. It is fair to assume that the non functioning of the programmes of the Laptop is due to aging and end of life of the Mother board. Since there is no physical damage or electrical damage to the insured Laptop the claim will not fall within the ambit of the policy.”
7. The surveyor reported that the machine was not in working condition at the time of his inspection and it is in unrepairable condition. Further he stated that the service centre has furnished to the surveyor with an estimate of Rs. 53,779.20 to rectify the defect of the lap top which is more than the sum insured. We feel that the surveyor has prima-facie transgress his limits of observation and judgment. Therefore the opposite party is liable to pay the insurance claim of Rs. 36,000/- on the basis of Ext. X1 survey report primarily.
8. In the above circumstances we direct the opposite party to pay insurance claim of Rs. 36,000/- to the complainant
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 failing which the amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realisation.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of January 2011
