CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 130/2010
Friday, the 12h day of July, 2013
Petitioner : M.P. Gopakumar,
XL/5834, T.D. East gannidhi Road,
Ernakulam,
Now residing at
Madappallil Huse,
Ettumanoor, Kottayam.
(Adv.P.V. Joseph)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
D.P.-3, Chennai No.7,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
II Floor,Rosy Towers,
Nagampakkam, Chennai
Tamil Nadu – 600034.
2) The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Inusrance Company Ltd,
Divisional Office, Kottayam
Mattethara Auditorium,
Y.W.C.A. Road, Kottayam.
(Adv. Sajan A. Varghese)
O R D E R
Sri. Bose Augustine, President.
Case of the petitioner, filed on 02-06-2007 is as follows:-
The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods carrier, 2000 model Tata made KPT1613 Lorry bearing Reg. No.KL7/AB4947. The vehicle was purchased by taking loan from the Financer M/s. Srimram Inverstments Ltd. The entire liability of the financer has been cleared by the petitioner. The vehicle was validly insured with the 1st opposite party through the financer as packaged policy as per policy No.411300/31/2006/13666, from 24-11-2005 to 23-11-2006. The vehicle is a goods carriage national permit having area of operation in the State of Kerala, Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Goa. On 09-03-2006 at 1.00pm the vehicle met with an accident within the Kadipure police station limit in Kannoor District. In the said accident the vehicle was hit on an electric post and caused damages to the vehicle amounting Rs.67,850/- by way of repair and caused third party damage to the K.S.E.B. for an amount Rs.13,710/-. The petitioner informed the opposite party through the financer and as per the instruction of the opposite party, its surveyor conducted survey and filed report to opposite party on 12-04-2006. The petitioner filed claim from to opposite party through the financer with all records and receipt of payment of Rs.13,710/- to the K.S.E.B. The opposite party reimbursed Rs.13,710/- paid to K.S.E.B but failed to settle the petitioner’s claim for property damages. According to petitioner, the opposite party’s failure to settle the claim within a reasonable period of 45 days after the receipt of claim form amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this petition filed seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.46,160/- with 12% interest towards property damages, Rs.15,000/- towards damages for mental agony and cost of the petition.
The opposite party filed version contenting that the claim raised by the petitioner was duly scrutinized and amounts were paid to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as agreed by the petitioner. The petitioner has given a consent letter, no objection statement to the financer for the purpose of settling the claim made by him to the insurer. The above said NOC was forwarded to the opposite party by the financer. And after verification and scrutiny of the claim made by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.26,700/- was paid to the Shriram Inverstments Ltd. vide cheque no. 62,920 dated 15-11-2006 as the opposite party had already received NOC from the petitioner for settlement infavour of the petitioner’s financier. And on 15-11-2006, the TPPD claim has been settled in favour of the insured/petitioner. According to opposite party the petitioner filed the petition by suppressing such a material fact of receipt of the amount and authorisation given by him to the financier to settle the claim. According to opposite party, there is no deficiency of any service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the petition. Hence opposite party pray for dismissal of the petition with their cost.
Points for considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by both sides and Ext. A1 to A18 were marked from the side of petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 marked with subject to proof from the side of opposite party.
Point No.1
The case of the petitioner is that his vehicle bearing No. KL-7/AB-4947 was insured with the opposite party under commercial vehicle packaged policy valid from 24-11-2005 to 23-11-2006 and the said vehicle was met with an accident on 09-03-2006. Due to the accident he had spend for Rs.67,850/- for repair the said vehicle and third party damages of Rs.13,710/- to the K.S.E.B. And the petitioner forwarded the claim form and other all connected records and the payment receipt of Rs.13,710/- issued by K.S.E.B., to the opposite party through his financier M/s. Sriram Investments Ltd. And the opposite party settled the claim for third party damagers only for Rs.1 3,710/- paid by the petitioner to K.S.E.B. But the opposite party has not yet settled the petitioners claim for property damages nor did it reject the claim also. According to opposite party the petitioner had spent Rs.67,840/- which includes the cost of spare parts of Rs.49,850/- and Rs.17,500/- labour charge. And after deducting 40% depreciation and Rs.1750/- as salvage value, the opposite party is liable to pay of Rs.46,160/- to the petitioner. In this case policy is admitted and the accident is admitted. The valid insurance of petitioner’s vehicle and survey report is also admitted. The only contention of opposite party is that they have settled the claim for property damages with the financier M/s. Sriram Investments Ltd. by paying Rs.26,700/- to the financier on 15-11-2006. And the opposite party produced the computer print copy of the claim disbursement voucher made in favour of Financier for an amount of Rs.26,700/- and the copy of mail received from the financier were produced and marked subjected to proof as Ext. B1 and B2. In our view the opposite party failed to prove his case and these documents by examining anybody. And another contention of opposite party is that they have received NOC from the petitioner for settlement in favour of the petitioner’s financier. But the opposite party failed to produce the said NOC before the Forum and failed to prove this contention. The privity of contract is with petitioner and insurance company. So it is not proper to settle the claim with the financier to whom the insurance company having any contract of insurance. The report of the surveyor is produced and it is marked as Ext. A15. The surveyor assessed the damage less salvage value as Rs.28,906/- In our view petitioner entitled for the compensation amount assessed by the surveyor. As per IRDA (Protection of Policy holders Interest) Regulations 2002 the opposite party is liable to settle the claim of an insured within 30 days of receipt of the Survey Report otherwise the insurer is liable to pay 2% interest above the bank rate to the insured. Here admittedly surveyor filed his report on 12-04-2006. So opposite party is liable to settle the claim on or before 12-05-2006. Since the claim is not settled as per norms of IRDA the insurance company is liable to pay 12% interest for the claim amount till realization. The act of opposite party in not settling the claim of the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. Point No. 1 is find accordingly
Point No.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1 the petition is allowed.
In the result
1. The opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.28,906/- as per Ext.A15 to the petitioner with 12% interest from 12-05-2006 till realization.
2. Since interest is allowed, no separate compensation is allowed.
3. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner.
The order is to be complied within one month of receipt of copy of the order
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Documents of the Petitioner:
Ext.A1 : Copy of the Registration Certificate Book No.-KL-07-AB-4947
Ext.A2 : Copy of motor insurance certificate cum policy insurance code
1812963
A2 (a) : Terms and conditions of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Ext.A3 : Copy of National permit for goods carriage
Ext.A4 : Copy of G.D. Entry.
Ext.A5 : Copy of electricity bill for Rs.13,710/-
Ext.A6 : Copy of bill issued by Universal Motors for Rs.17,500/-dtd. 14-10-2006.
Ext.A7 : Copy of bill issued by Kolumbil Sawmill for Rs.10,125/- dtd.09-10-2006.
Ext.A8 : Copy of bill issued by Friends Auto Garage dtd. 10-10-2006
Ext.A9 : Copy of bill issued by Deluxe Glass Cuttings for Rs.5,500/- dtd. 14-10-06.
Ext.A10 : Copy of bill issued by Jawahar Steels for Rs.12,838/- dtd. 14-10-2006.
Ext.A11 : Copy of bill issued by Abdulla & Sons for Rs.8155/- dtd.14-10-2006 vide
bill no.344.
Ext.A12 : Copy of bill issued by Abdulla & Sons for Rs.364/- dtd.14-10-2006 vide
bill no.185.
Ext.A13 : Copy of bill issued by Perfect Precision Components for Rs.1,284.50/-
dtd.14-10-006.
Ext.A14 : Copy of bill issued by Jawahar Steels for Rs. 11,232/- dtd. 14-10-2006
Ext.A15 : Copy of Survey Report of K. Loganathan dtd. 12-04-2006.
Ext.A16 : Copy of lawyers notice dtd. 29-03-2007.
Ext.A17 : Postal registration receipt RLAD A 6880
Ext A17 (a): Postal registration receipt RLAD A 6881
Ext.A18 : Postal acknowledgement card addressed to The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ext.A18(a) : Postal acknowledgement card addressed to P.V. Joseph (Adv.)
Documents of opposite party:
Ext.B1 : Copy of vouched from the Orienal Insurance Co. for Rs.26,700/-
Ext.B2 : Copy of mail received from the financier M/s. Shriram Invt for the payment of Rs.26,700/-
Ext.B3 : Copy of disbursement voucher Rs.13,710/-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
