Date of Filing : 25.04.2022
Date of Disposal : 21.02.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.30/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
Mr.B.Jothieswaran,
S/o.Balakrishnan,
No.30, R.K.Avenue, Nethaji Street,
Thatchoor, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
The Manager,
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Old No 398, 3rd Floor,
New No.824/1, NG Tower Nandanam,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 035. …..opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.K.Nagarajan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 16.02.2023 in the presence of M/s.K.Nagarajan Advocate, counsel for the complainant and the opposite party was set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in repudiating the claim of insurance along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- toward compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of income to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he was the owner of Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 18 AV 5999 and the same was purchased with the financial assistance of bank. On purchasing the said vehicle, the same was insured with the opposite party’s Company for the period from 13.06.2020 to 12.06.2021. At the time of purchasing the insurance policy No.120322023340017246 the opposite party assured that they would indemnify the loss to complainant’s vehicle in case of any untoward incident. When the said policy was in force, the complainant‘s vehicle met with an accident on 05.06.2021 and the same was duly informed to the opposite party on 06.06.2021 and thereafter the opposite party had informed and insisted the complainant to send invoice for the repair to be done to the complainant’s vehicle. Thereby the complainant had given his vehicle to T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Private Limited to rectify the damage on the vehicle due to the said accident. Before commencing the repair work, the person on behalf of the opposite party had inspected the vehicle and noted down the damages as well as Engine and Chassis number and thereafter the repair works were carried out and in view of the fact that the vehicle has to undergo for fitness certificate the painting and other works were also carried out for the same. After completion of the repair work the Insurance Invoice was raised to the opposite party for which the opposite party had sent a letter dated 06.08.2021 stating that the complainant’s claim was rejected for the reason that the vehicle which was produced for inspection prior to the commencement of the insurance risk/cover was found to be different from the one which was produced at the time of survey. The vehicle produced for inspection prior to the commencement of the insurance risk was the one and the same which was produced at the time of survey and the same was confirmed by the opposite party’s officer who inspected the vehicle by verifying the Engine and Chassis number. In such circumstances the opposite party’s letter dated 06.08.2021 was nothing but clear case of adopting a deceptive method or practice with intention to deceive the complainant’s lawful claim. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the complaint was filed by the complainant for the following reliefs as mentioned below;
To pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- toward compensation to the complainant;
To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint;
To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of income to the complainant.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A7. In spite of sufficient opportunities and notice the opposite party did not appear before this Commission and hence they were called absent and set ex-parte on 06.10.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period prescribed under the statute.
Points for consideration:
Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of insurance by the opposite party has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Permit in respect of goods permit dated 06.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;
Insurance Invoice dated 11.06.2021 was marked as Ex.A2;
Copy of Reliance General Insurance was marked as Ex.A3;
Policy details was marked as Ex.A4;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 06.10.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;
Statement of Account of the complainant was marked as Ex.A6;
Photos was marked as Ex.A7;
The complainant had filed written argument with an endorsement that the same may be treated as oral arguments and hence we decided to consider the written arguments and material evidences produced by the complainant for disposal of the case on merits.
The crux of the written arguments by the complainant is that the opposite party had failed to honor the claim for repairs meted out by the complainant for repairing the vehicle after it met with an accident on 05.06.2021 and the reason stated by the opposite party for repudiating the claim was that “Front Glass is different in pre-inspection and accidental photographs, There is sticker in front and back windshield in initial survey but not in pre-inspection, Diesel tank grill is different in pre-inspection and accidental photographs and Odometer totally different in pre-inspection and accidental photographs“ and hence it was stated that the vehicle produced at the time of taking insurance and the vehicle produced fo survey is disserent .It was denied by the complainant that the vehicle produced for inspection at the time of taking policy and at the time of taking survey for carrying out the repair are one and the same. Only to avoid the liability, the Insurance Company is taking a different stand and citing irrelevant reason to repudiate the claim. Thus the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed.
We perused the documents, we found that the Engine number and Chassis number for the vehicle is one and the same as found in the permit and in the Insurance invoice. The insurance invoice was given for repair of the vehicle after it met with the accident. When the Permit and Insurance invoice has the same Engine number and Chassis number the reason stated by the opposite party that the vehicle is different could not be accepted. Further the opposite party also did not appear before this commission to substantiate their reason that the vehicle produced is different. In such facts and circumstances when it is clearly established by way of documents Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 that the vehicle is one and the same, merely by citing immaterial reasons such as front glass different and sticker in front and back is not found and Diesel tank grill different and odometer totally different etc., the Insurance Company cannot absolve from its liability in paying the insurance claim. Hence, this commssion is of the view that the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party clearly amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.
Point No.2:
With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant vide Insurance invoice Ex.A2 an amount of Rs.2,34,878/- was mentioned for the repair of the vehicle. Though the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- we are of the view that directing the opposite party to pay the insurance amount would be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant we award an amount of Rs.50,000/- to be paid as compensation by the opposite party. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them
a) to pay a sum of Rs.2,34,878/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty four thousand eight hundred and seventy eight only) within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b)to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21st day of February 2022.
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 06.03.2019 Pemit in respect of goods permit. Xerox
Ex.A2 11.06.2021 Insurance Invoice. Xerox
Ex.A3 06.08.2021 General Insurance. Xerox
Ex.A4 ............. Policy Details. Xerox
Ex.A5 06.10.2021 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the oppostie party. Xerox
Ex.A6 08.02.2022 Statement of Account of the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A7 ................ Photos. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
Nil
-Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
