BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No: 101/2010 Filed on 30..03..2010

Dated: 31..10..2012

Complainant:

Suseela. P., Satheesh Vihar, Thekkevila, Eravipuram, Kollam.

(By Adv. K. Dinesh Sajan)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s. Reliance General Insurance, XL 3599, IV Floor, Elizabeth Alexander, Marine Drive, Ernakulam.

2. M/s. Reliance General Insurance, No:3, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

(Opposite parties 1 & 2 by Adv. G. Satheesh)

3. M/s. Mooppan Motors Pvt Ltd., Nettoor – P.O., Kochi.

(By Adv. R. Jayakrishnan)

This O.P having been heard on 22..10..2012, the Forum on 31..10..2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is the owner of a Toyota Innova vehicle bearing Reg. No: KL 02 AB 2167, that the said vehicle was insured with M/s. Reliance General Insurance, the opposite parties 1 & 2, that the said vehicle met with an accident on 26/12/2009 at Puthukkotta District, Tamil Nadu, that after registration of a case, the vehicle was taken to the 3^rd opposite party, M/s. Mooppan Motors Pvt Limited, Kochi, which is the authorised Service Centre of Nippon Toyota, that after compliance of statutory formalities, the claim was submitted without any delay, that opposite parties 1 & 2 assessed the damages through authorised surveyor deputed by them, that after assessment two options were put forward by opposite parties agent, that the first being that the vehicle will be considered as a total loss case and complainant will be given Rs. 3,25,000/- only, second being that the complainant will be paid Rs. 2,50,000/- as repairing charges, that the vehicle was valued at Rs. 6,50,000/- for the purpose of issuing policy, that the estimate prepared by the 3^rd opposite party was for Rs. 6,75,665/-, though the complainant had brought these facts before the office of the 1^st opposite party, no attempt was made by opposite parties 1 & 2 to settle the claim, that the vehicle was kept at 3^rd opposite party workshop which caused much loss daily to the complainant, that thereafter complainant sent legal notice dated 10/3/2010 to opposite party but opposite party did not respond at all. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to pay the entire amount of repair as billed by 3^rd opposite party for repairing the vehicle of the complainant, to the extent of the coverage under the policy issued by opposite parties 1 & 2 along with compensation and cost.

2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable and is immature, that the claim settlement is not finalised, that complainant has not given any consent to the workshop for starting work, that the claim can be processed and finalised only on completion of repairing work and submitting the required documents, bills etc, that complainant has approached this Forum without observing the necessary requirements of the claim, that opposite parties has not rejected the claim or offered any amount at this stage, that no amount was offered as alleged in the complaint, that the loss was assessed by an authorised, independent, licensed surveyor and a report was filed assessing the loss as Rs. 3,81,685.34/-, that on the basis of the assessment the claim can be settled on repair basis after completion of repair, submission of repair bills and conducting re-inspection, that opposite parties are bound to follow the norms, procedures and law laid down for settlement of claims and not as per the imaginations and logic of the complaint, that there is no deficiency of service, that the complaint is only to be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. 3^rd opposite party filed version contending that the vehicle in dispute was brought to the 3^rd opposite party service centre on 31/12/2009, that the surveyor on behalf of M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company had conducted survey of the damaged vehicle on 8/1/2010 at the premises of the 3^rd opposite party, that as per the Insurance company, a detailed investigation is required and they did not give their approval to repair till date, that 3^rd opposite party prepared an estimate for repairs valuing Rs. 6,75,665.03/- and it was informed to the complainant, that on 6/4/2010 complainant given a consent letter to ther 3^rd opposite party to start the work with replacement for body shell and paid a sum of Rs. 1,37,500/- as advance and accordingly the work has started, that complainant has never claimed any relief against 3^rd opposite party. Hence 3^rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint against 3^rd opposite party.

4. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has marked Exts. P1 to P9. In rebuttal, Assistant Manager of the opposite parties 1 & 2 has filed proof affidavit and has marked Ext. D1.

5. Points (i to iii): There is no dispute regarding the validity of insurance policy issued by the opposite parties 1 & 2. There is no dispute on the point that the vehicle met with an accident. Admittedly, vehicle was taken to 3^rd opposite party for repair. The very case of the complainant is that after compliance all statutory formalities for making an insurance claim with opposite parties 1 & 2 the claim was submitted without any delay. According to 3^rd opposite party the surveyor on behalf of opposite parties 1 & 2 one Mr. Balamurali had conducted survey of the damaged vehicle in dispute on 8/1/2010 at the premises of the 3^rd opposite party. According to 3^rd opposite party, 3^rd opposite party prepared an estimate for repairs valuing Rs. 6,75,665.03/-. Complainant's evidence consists of oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P9. Ext. P1 is the copy of the dealer issued by opposite parties 1 & 2. As per Ext. P1 policy period is from 21/12/2009 to 20/12/2010. IDV is Rs. 6,50,000/-. Ext. P2 is the copy of the FIR relating to KL.02 AB 2167, date of FIR 26/12/2009. Ext. P3 is the copy of the estimate of repairs issued by Mooppan Motors Private Limited. As per Ext. P3 estimate repairs comes to Rs. 6,75,665.03/-. Ext. P4 photographs of the damaged vehicle. Ext. P5 is the copy of the Advocate notice dated 10/3/2010 issued by complainant to opposite parties 1 & 2. Ext. P6 is the acknowledgement card. Ext. P7 is the letter dated 20/10/2010 issued by Reliance General Insurance to the complainant. It is stated in Ext. P7 that on receipt of claim intimation opposite party had deputed Mr. Balamurali to assess / investigate the survey and they are in receipt of survey / investigate report. It is further stated in Ext. P7 that complainant has not produced the vehicle for re-inspection. It is further informed that opposite parties empathize with the loss sustained by the complainant but regret to inform that loss is not payable due to violation of policy terms and conditions. In view of the same they are constrained to repudiate the claim and the claim is treated as closed. Ext. P8 is the receipt voucher for Rs. 1,37,500 dated 6^th April 2010 issued by Nippon Toyota in the name of the complainant. Ext. P9 is the receipt voucher for Rs. 4,73,470/- dated 4^th June 2010 issued by Nippon Toyota towards balance payment Reg. No. KL 2 AB 2167. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed proof affidavit and Ext. D1. Ext. D1 is the survey report prepared by Mr. Balamurali. As per Ext. D1 surveyor has assessed the net liability to the tune of Rs. 3,81,685.34/- plus tax if any. The stand of the opposite party is that the claim can be processed and finalised only on completion of repairing work and submitting the required documents, bills etc. According to opposite party the loss was assessed by an authorised surveyor deputed by them and a report was filed by the surveyor by Ext. D1. According to opposite parties 1 & 2 claim can be settled on the basis of assessment, on repair basis after completion of repair, submission of repair bills and conducting re-inspection. The very stand of the opposite party is that complainant had not given any consent to the workshop for starting work till filing of this complaint. Complainant has approached this Forum with malafide intention and without observing necessary requirements. It should be noted that complainant has produced Exts. P8 & P9 receipt voucher issued by 3^rd opposite party towards payment Reg. No. KL 2 AB 2167. As per Ext. P7 repudiation letter issued by opposite parties 1 & 2 complainant was called upon to produce the vehicle for re-inspection. It is informed by opposite parties 1 & 2 by Ext. P7 that complainant has not produced the vehicle for re-inspection thereby they are constrained to repudiate the claim. It is submitted that the agrieved party has to furnish repair bills and produce the vehicle for re-inspection for settlement of claim. Herein complainant has not furnished repair bills for claim settlement. It is to be noted that eventhough complainant has claimed huge amount in the complaint, surveyor deputed by opposite parties has assessed damages to the tune of Rs. 3,81,685.34. Complainant has never challenged the survey report thereby we find that the assessment done by surveyor in Ext. D1 is genuine and correct. Had complainant furnished repair bills complainant would have got the claim amount on the basis of the survey report. To avoid further litigation, taking the overall situation, we are of the view that justice will be well met if opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 3,81,685.34 as assessed by the surveyor to settle the claim amount. Survey report is seen filed on 14/1/2010. Complaint is filed on 30/3/2010 while advance payment towards repair work is seen paid on 6^th April 2010, that is, after filing this complaint. The balance amount to the 3^rd opposite paty is seen paid on 4^th June 2010. During cross examination complainant has deposed that after completion of repair works complainant had sent all bills to the Insurance Company. According to complainant she had sent bills by post. She has admitted that she has filed the complaint before sending the bills to the opposite party. It is to be noted that complainant has produced Exts. P8 & P9 bills (Originals) before this Forum. Complainant has deposed that she has sent the copies of Exts. P8 & P9 bills to the opposite parties 1 & 2. Since complainant has furnished original bills (Exts. P8 & P9) before this Forum, it can be concluded that the bills sent by the complainant to the opposite party may be copy of the original bills. For settling the claim complainant has to furnish the original bills before the Insurance Company. Opposite party has repudiated the claim on non-production of vehicle for re-inspection. According to complainant, even after intimation to the opposite parties, they did not turn up for inspection after repair. Since this complaint was filed before starting repair work we do not find any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in not settling the claim and to avoid further litigation we direct opposite party to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor by Ext. D1 to the complainant along with 8% interest from the date of balance payment (receipt voucher) dated 4^th June, 2010 issued by 3^rd opposite party.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,81,685.34/- with 8% interest thereon from 4^th June 2010 within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which Rs. 3,81,685.34 will carry interest at the rate of 12% from 4^th June 2010. In facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to compensation and cost.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day of October, 2012.

sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT. sd/-

BEENA KUMARI .A,

MEMBER.

sd/-

S.K. SREELA,

MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No: 101/2010

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of the dealer issued by opposite parties 1 & 2

P2 : " FIR relating to KL.02 AB 2167 date of FIR 26/12/2009.

P3 : " estimate of repairs issued by Mooppan Motors Private Ltd

P4 : Photographs of the damaged vehicle

P5 : Copy of the advocate notice dated 10/03/2010 issued by the complainant to opposite parties 1 & 2. P6 : Acknowledgement card

P7 : Letter dated 20/10/2010 issued by Reliance General Insurance to the complainant.

P8 : Receipt Voucher for Rs. 1,37,500/- datd 6^th April 2010 issued by Nippon Toyota in the name of the complainant.

P9 : Receipt voucher for Rs. 4,73,470/- dated 4^th June 2010 issued by Nippon Toyota.

II. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Suseela Satheesan

III. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of Survey Report prepared by Mr. Balamurali

sd/-

PRESIDENT