Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

111/2011

Kasturi Pratap - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ganesan

12 Sep 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint Presented on : 02.05.2011

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 12.09.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.111/2011

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

                                 

Mrs. Kasturi Pratap,

W/o. Mr. Pratap,

No.5/3, Mylai Ranganathan Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                        .. Complainant.                              

 

                                                                                              ..Versus..

1. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Maruti Business Hub,

No.169, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

2. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited,

Rep. by its Relationship Manager,

Maruthi Business Hub,

No.169, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : Mr. K. Ganesan

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. Eleveera Ravindaran &

                                                                 another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.2,46,000/- being the amount incurred by the complainant based on the quotation dated:23.04.2011 with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 29.03.2011 till date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, physical strain, stress and sufferings suffered by the complainant on account of negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she is the owner of the vehicle viz Maruti Swift bearing registration No.TN 09 AX 8001 was insured with the 2^nd opposite party vide policy No.M111211110311955 on 29.06.2010 and paid an annual premium Rs.9,731/- covering all risk and damages.  The complainant submits that on 13.08.2010, the said vehicle was taken by the complainant’s nephew Mr. Gunasekar to go to Bangalore at a place called “Enathur” near Kancheepuram, the vehicle met with an accident with a goods lorry bearing Registration No.TN 22 F 2148 proceedings before the complainant’s car due to sudden application of brake by the goods lorry resulting the front portion of the vehicle TN 09 AX 8001 was fully damaged.  The co-passenger Mr. Om Prakash had a shock and panic and was taken to Meenakshi Medical College and Hospital where in due prescription were given and the vehicle was towed for safe custody at Kancheepuram itself.    On 16.08.2010, the car was once again towed back to Indus Motors, Chennai for carrying out necessary repairs.  After lodging the complaint with Kancheepuram Taluk Police Station, the Kanceepuram Police also visited the place made investigation and issued a report that the impugned car met with an accident caused severe damage to the vehicle.  The service provider one Mr. K. Srinivasan has issued a receipt for having received the towing charges and in the said receipt he has inadvertently mentioned the date as 30.07.2010 instead of 13.08.2010.  

2.     The complainant submits that the estimate for the repairs vide bill No.4313 dated:19.08.2010 for a sum of Rs. Rs.1,76,385/-.  The complainant made a claim with the insurance company and submitted all relevant records.  But the opposite party insurance company repudiated the claim and issued a letter dated:18.10.2010 on the ground that  the towing receipt given by you dated:30.07.2010 seems to be a doctored document and FIR and toll receipt were not submitted.  The complainant also issued a letter dated:21.10.2010 stating the reason for the wrong mention of dates and other records.  The complainant submits that three surveyors and officials of the insurance company coupled with police enquired the accident about 1½ months and thereafter, the police issued certificate of accident and after police investigation has given a certificate that the accident occurred at the place mentioned by the complainant, it is far fetch for the Insurance Company/Opposite parties to state that there is no evidence substantiating the accident spot.  The complainant submits that the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties is unreasonable and arbitrary. Hence, the complainant has left with no other alternative but to issue legal notice through Counsel dated:03.01.2011 and the said notice has been duly acknowledged by the opposite party.  The opposite party sent a reply dated:12.01.2011 putting forward absolutely false and untenable allegation. The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:-

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that there was an inordinate delay of information regarding the accident and the claim.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that since there was delay in information and claim, the opposite parties 1 & 2 is appointed an independent Surveyor who investigated the claim and filed a report showing the accident and damages.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the vehicle was towed to Kancheepuram for safe custody immediately after the accident.  The complainant has further alleged that the vehicle was towed from the accident place to Kancheepuram on 13.08.2010 and on 16.08.2010 was towed from Kancheepuram to Chennai.   The complainant has filed a towing receipt dated:30.07.2010 said to have been issued by one K. Srinivasan alleging to have towed the vehicle on 13.08.2010 from Guindy – Kancheepuram – Kancheepuram to Chennai and 16.08.2010 Chennai – Kancheepuram – Nesapakkam Shed.

The opposite parties had sent a letter dated:18.10.2010 clearly intimating to the complainant that the place of accident is not properly identifiable because of the following facts:-

a) Towing receipt submitted by the complainant dated:30.07.2010 seems to be a doctored document as per our Investigation report.

b)  FIR copy not submitted by the complainant.

c) The complainant has not submitted any record obtained from the Toll gate both for onward & return trips. 

The opposite parties 1 & 2 state on verification, it was seen that no case has been registered at the Jurisdiction police station and no FIR was filed.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 submit that that no intimation was given to the opposite parties immediately on the occurrence of the alleged accident, thus depriving the opposite parties of conducting an on the spot survey and belated intimation was given to the police authorities and no FIR was filed.    Further the towing receipts have been tampered with.   Hence, the complainant has not suffered any mental agony as alleged and is not entitled to any compensation, muchless the compensation for mental agony.   Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.21 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2. 

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.2,46,000/- incurred for repairing the vehicle with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard their Counsels also.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that she is the owner of the vehicle (viz) Maruti Swift bearing registration No.TN 09 AX 8001 was insured with the 2^nd opposite party vide policy No.M111211110311955 on 29.06.2010 and paid an annual premium Rs.9,731/- covering all risk and damages.  Ex.A9 is the copy of policy Certificate cum Schedule.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 13.08.2010, the said vehicle was taken by the complainant’s nephew Mr. Gunasekar to go to Bangalore; at a place called “Enathur” near Kancheepuram, the vehicle met with an accident with a goods lorry bearing Registration No.TN 22 F 2148 proceedings infront of the complainant’s car; due to sudden application of brake by the goods lorry the complainant’s car hit against the goods lorry resulting huge damage in the front portion of the vehicle TN 09 AX 8001.  The co-passenger Om Prakash had a shock and panic and was taken to Meenakshi Medical College and Hospital where in due prescription were given and the vehicle was towed for safe custody at Kancheepuram itself.  Ex.A1 is the copy of prescription of Meenakshi Medical Hospital, Enathur.  On 16.08.2010, the car was once again towed back to Indus Motors, Chennai for carrying out necessary repairs.  After lodging the complaint with Kancheepuram Taluk Police Station, the Kanceepuram Police also visited the place of accident and made investigation and issued a report as per Ex.A2 in clear terms that the impugned car met with an accident caused severe damage to the front portion of the vehicle.  The service provider Mr. K. Srinivasan who towed the car issued receipt Ex.A4 with the wrong date as 30.07.2010 instead of 13.08.2010 which is the sole mistake of K. Srinivasan who towed the vehicle also has not handed over the tollgate receipt.  On a careful perusal of Ex.A4, it reads as follows:

“13/08/2010 fpz;b to fhQ;rpGuk; to fhQ;rpGuk; to nrd;id

16/08/2010 nrd;id to fhQ;rpGk; to Nerg;ghf;fk; shed”.

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the estimate for the repairs vide bill No.4313 dated:19.08.2010 for a sum of Rs. Rs.1,76,385/- as per Ex.A7 (S).  The complainant made a claim with the insurance company and submitted all relevant records.  But the opposite party insurance company repudiated the claim and issued a letter dated:18.10.2010 as per Ex.A5 for the reasons stated that

a) Towing receipt given by you dated:30.07.2010 seems to be a doctored document as per our Investigation report.

b) FIR copy of not submitted by you.

c) You have not submitted any record obtained from the Toll gate both for onward & return trips.  

It is also stated by the insurance company that FIR was not submitted.  On the other hand, the complainant produced Ex.A2 police report in clear terms.  The opposite party also stated that due tollgate receipt has not been produced by the complainant which is lost.  The complainant also issued a letter dated:21.10.2010 to the Relationship Manager, National Insurance Company as per Ex.A6, stating the reason for the wrong mention of dates and other records.  Further the contention of the complainant is that three surveyors and officials of the insurance company coupled with police enquired with the accident about 1½ months and thereafter, the police issued certificate of accident.   After police investigation, the opposite party is not entitled to conduct any investigation by appointing any investigator.

8.     As per the decision cited in: 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

Revision Petition No.1207 of 2008

Between

CEO, Cholamandam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. & another

-Versus-

Mr.  Abhijat Saini & another

Held that

          “In our view the provisions of delay in informing the Insurance Company or lodging the report with the police are of little significance as these are of directory nature and not of the mandatory nature.  What is relevant is whether any such accident or occurrence has taken place or not and whether the insured has played fraud or given wrong information to take undue benefit against the insurance policy.  Once the report is lodged with the police may be in any form, the Insurance Company is barred from  appointing any Investigator to investigate into the fact whether the theft or accident has taken place or not.  Under the Code of Criminal Procedure only the police has the authority to investigate into the offence registered under the IPC and nobody else.  If the Insurance Companies are allowed to appoint Investigator for going into the truthfulness of the occurrence then there will be two parallel investigations, one by the statutory authority and another by an authority which is in competent to investigate into a criminal offence.  We have also held that Insurance Companies have no option than to accept the report of the police with regard to accident or theft of a vehicle or loss of vehicle by way of any other incident or event”.

9.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties is unreasonable and arbitrary. The opposite party insurance company after issuing policy of insurance also admitting the fact of damage bound to pay compensation as per policy.  Further the complainant contended that M/s. Indus Motors issued Quotation for repair for a sum of Rs.1,76,385/-.   But for due repair bill for Rs.1,76,385/- alone produced.  The repudiation of claim by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

10.    The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that there was an inordinate delay of information regarding the accident and the claim.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2, due information given at the earliest point of time and the police undergone investigation also conducted in the early hours.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that since there was delay in information and claim, the opposite parties 1 & 2 appointed an independent Surveyor who investigated the claim and filed Ex.B6, report showing the accident and damages.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that admittedly, the vehicle was towed to Kancheepuram for safe custody immediately after the accident.  But the receipts shows the date as 30.07.2010.  On a careful perusal of Ex.A4, it is very clear that the vehicle was towed on 13.08.2010 (i.e.) immediately on the date of accident.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that no FIR registered and produced.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2, the police investigated the accident and issued the Accident Certificate by narrating the accident and damage occurred to the vehicle proves the accident.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the complainant miserably failed to produce Tollgate bill in order to show that the impugned vehicle was taken to Chennai for repair.   But Tollgate receipts has not been produced in this Forum since it was misplaced / lost.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the complainant has not proved the accident; is not acceptable because, it is apparently clear from Ex.A2 that  the vehicle met with an accident.   Equally, Ex.A7 to Ex.A21 speak in volumes regarding the estimate, bills for repair advocate notice etc proves that the impugned vehicle met with an accident caused severe damages. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that opposite parties 1 & 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.1,76,385/- towards  repair charges with a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,76,385/- (Rupees One lakh seventy six thousand three hundred and eighty five only) and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of September 2019. 

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	13.08.2010	Copy of P. Om Prakash’s prescription of Meenakshi Medical Hospital, Eanethur
Ex.A2	16.08.2010	Copy of B-3 Kancheepuram Police Station Accident Certificate
Ex.A3	18.08.2010	Copy of S.S. Recovery service (Towing) – Nesapakkam to Indus Motors, Kaatupakkam
Ex.A4	30.07.2010	Copy of K. Srinivasan Towing Service
Ex.A5	18.10.2010	Copy of National Insurance Company letter
Ex.A6	21.10.2010	Copy of Kasthuri Pratap’s letter to National Insurance
Ex.A7 (S)	19.08.2010	Copy of Indus Motors Estimate – Maruti Swift- TN-09-AX-8001
Ex.A8	22.11.2010	Copy of National Insurance Company letter
Ex.A9	29.06.2010	Copy of National Insurance Policy
Ex.A10	27.11.2010	Copy of Kasthuri Pratap’s letter to National Insurance – Regd. A/c Due
Ex.A11	21.12.2010	Copy of K. Srinivasan Towing Service – Letter (K. Ganesh)
Ex.A12	03.01.2011	Copy of P.B. Ramanujam, Advocate’s letter to National Insurance
Ex.A13	12.01.2011	Copy of Mrs. N.B.  Surekha Advocate’s letter to Sri P.B.R.
Ex.A14	21.03.2011	Copy of Kasthuri Pratap’s letter to National Insurance – Regd. A/c Due
Ex.A15	23.11.2010	Copy of Dinamani Daily newspaper cutting
Ex.A16	29.03.2011	Copy of Indus Motors Advance receipt to car repair
Ex.A17		Copy of car accident 3 photographs – TN-09-AX-8001
Ex.A18	18.08.2010	Copy of receipt for accidental car handed over to Indus Motors on 18.08.2010
Ex.A19	23.04.2011	Copy of revised estimate for car from Indus Motors, Kattupakkam
Ex.A20	29.06.2010	Copy of policy contained the back side
Ex.A21 (S)	29.03.2011	Copy of receipts issued by M/s. Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd.

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1		Copy of policy of insurance
Ex.B2		Copy of terms and conditions of the policy
Ex.B3	30.07.2010	Copy of towing receipt
Ex.B4	18.10.2010	Copy of letter sent to the complainant by opposite party
Ex.B5	18.10.2010	Copy of letter sent to the Superintendent of Police by the opposite party
Ex.B6	25.10.2010	Copy of Investigation Report
Ex.B7	22.11.2010	Copy of letter sent to the complainant to opposite party

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT