Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/15/2015

Mr.B.Rajesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Royal Sundaram Allianace Insurance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Ravisekaran

03 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 18.12.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 03.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

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

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.15 /2015

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 03^RD DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

Mr. B. Rajesh,

S/o. Mr. Boopalan,

No.6/10, Karnan Street,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                .. Complainant.                                              

 

..Versus..

 

M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Sundaram Towers,

No.46, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                          ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant        :  Mr. R. Ravisekaran

Counsel for opposite party    :  M/s. M.B. Gopalan & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

        This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the repairing charges and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

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

 The complainant submits that he is the owner of the vehicle ‘Maruthi Swift VDI’ V01 BS IV bearing Registration No.TN 01 AP 1008 for which, he has taken Insurance policy for the period from 16.02.2013 to 15.02.2014 vide policy No.MOP.1702825 for the liability of personal vehicle damage and third party claims.  The policy expires on 15.02.2014.  Hence the complainant sent renewal application along with payment by cheque dated:13.02.2014 drawn on SBI, Chennai – 600 024 on 13.02.2014.   The said cheque and application was received by the opposite party on 17.02.2014 and the policy was renewed negligently only on 24.02.2014 under Policy No. MOP.2222839 for a period of one year ending with 23.02.2015.   The complainant further states that his vehicle’s front view glass found crack on 17.05.2014 due to technical defect.  As the complainant is entitled to get compensation for replacement of the said glass from the opposite party he handed over vehicle to ‘ABT Maruthi’ for replacing the cracked front view glass with a new glass by getting the new price of the same with the same labour charges from the opposite party by way of compensation.  But the ABT Maruthi company returned the vehicle without replacing the front glass stating that the opposite party declined to pay compensation due to break in policy.  Since the complainant applied for renewal along with payment on 13.02.2014 itself, it is the duty of the opposite party to renew in time but negligently renewed only on 24.02.2014.   Therefore, there is no break in policy.  The complainant submitted his claim on 27.05.2014.   Therefore, the damages happened on 17.05.2014 during the subsistence of policy.   The complainant further states that when the policy is in force, the opposite party did not carry out the repair as stipulated in the policy.   Therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation. The complainant issued legal notice dated:12.06.2014 but the opposite party denied the complainant’s claim.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony to the complainant.   Hence this  complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party states that the complaint has to be dismissed since the complainant had indulged in total suppression of facts and misrepresentation as will be demonstrated by comparison  of the Claim Form submitted for the claim earlier to the opposite party and the cause of damage stated in the present complaint.   There was a delay in renewal of policy.  The opposite party refer to condition No.1 of the policy which stipulates as under:

 “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage”. The complainant also not fulfilled condition No.8 of the policy.  The opposite party further submits that the Surveyor Report also stated that no fresh damage to the body on the right side except minor dents that too which were very old and not fresh.   It is unrelated to the damage to the glass.  The dents did not extend to the front windshield glass.    The opposite party further states that the complainant did not reveal the actual cause of damage to the windshield and therefore, the opposite party repudiated the claim by letter dated:10.06.2014 stating that the front windscreen glass damage is not relevant to the cause and nature of accident narrated in the claim.  Therefore, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards repairing charges as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony as prayed for?

5.     On point:-

The opposite party has not turned up to advance any oral argument for a long time.   The complainant made an endorsement to treat the written arguments as his oral arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The complainant contended that he is the owner of the vehicle ‘Maruthi Swift VDI’ V01 BS IV bearing Registration No.TN 01 AP 1008 for which, he has taken Insurance policy for the period from 16.02.2013 to 15.02.2014 vide policy No.MOP.1702825 for the liability of personal vehicle damage and third party claims.  The policy expires on 15.02.2014.  Hence the complainant sent renewal application along with payment by cheque dated:13.02.2014 drawn on SBI, Chennai – 600 024 on 13.02.2014.   The said cheque and application was received by the opposite party on 17.02.2014 and the policy was renewed negligently only on 24.02.2014 for a period of one year ending with 23.02.2015 vide Ex.B2.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.B2 policy, it is seen that the opposite party issued a fresh policy vide No. MOP.2222839 for the period from 24.02.2014 to 23.02.2015; which is not acceptable since the existing policy expires only on 15.02.2014 and the complainant issued a cheque dated:13.02.2014 well before the expiry date proves deficiency in service.  As per the contention of the complainant the opposite party renewed the policy only on 24.02.2014.  The opposite party also has not stated the reason for renewal of policy belatedly.   Therefore, it is treated as continuation of existing policy.  The complainant further contended that his vehicle’s front wind glass found crack on 17.05.2014 due to technical defect.  As the complainant is entitled to get compensation for replacement of the said glass from the opposite party he handed over vehicle to ‘ABT Maruthi’ for replacing the cracked front wind glass with a new glass by getting the new price of the same with the same labour charges from the opposite party by way of compensation.  But the ABT Maruthi company returned the vehicle without replacing the front glass stating that the opposite party declined to pay compensation due to break in policy; which is not acceptable.  Since the complainant applied for renewal of policy along with payment on 13.02.2014 itself, it is the duty of the opposite party to renew the policy in time but negligently renewed only on 24.02.2014.   Therefore, there is no break in policy. 

4.     The complainant submitted his claim on 27.05.2014.  The damages happened on 17.05.2014 during the subsistence of policy is accepted.  The complainant sought compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party which he paid to repair the vehicle.  The complainant further contended that when the policy is in force, the opposite party have no right to repudiate the claim as stipulated in the policy.  Therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation.  The complainant issued legal notice dated:12.06.2014 as per Ex.A5.  But the opposite party denied the complainant’s claim which caused mental agony.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the repairing charges and a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

5.     The opposite party contended that the complaint has to be dismissed in limine since the complainant had indulged in total suppression of facts and misrepresentation as will be demonstrated by comparison  of the Claim Form submitted for the claim earlier to the opposite party and the cause of damage stated in the present complaint.   There was a delay in renewal of policy.  The opposite party referred condition No.1 of the policy marked as Ex.B2 “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage”.  The complainant also has said not fulfilled condition No.8 of the policy.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that it is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant reported the accidental damage to the vehicle on 18.05.2004.   The opposite party further contended that the Surveyor Report also stated that no fresh damage to the body on the right side except minor dents that too which were very old and not fresh.   It is unrelated to the damage to the glass.  The dents did not extend to the front windshield glass.   Therefore, it became clear that there was no damage attributable to any accident caused by mini bus as stated by the complainant.   But on a perusal of Ex.B3 Claim Form, it is proved that the incident occurred.  Ex.B4 namely the Surveyor Report also proves that the front windshield glass got damaged.  The said Surveyor Report cannot be ignored.  Therefore, the contention of the opposite party is unsustainable.   The opposite party further contended that the complainant did not reveal the actual cause of damage to the windshield and therefore, the opposite party repudiated the claim by letter dated:10.06.2014 stating that the front windscreen glass damage is not relevant to the cause and nature of accident narrated in the claim.   There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not acceptable.  Though the opposite party issued a policy from 24.02.2014 to 23.02.2015, the complainant issued cheque for renewal of policy dated:13.02.2014.  But the opposite party renewed the same belatedly for which, the complainant is not responsible proves deficiency in service.  Therefore, it is a renewed policy and the complainant is entitled to the claim along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards repair charges and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand  only) being the repair charges and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five 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 03^rd day of July 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1		Copy of R.C. Book
Ex.A2		Copy of Maruthi Insurance broking Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.A3		Copy of Certificate of Insurance Royal Sundaram
Ex.A4	27.05.2014	Copy of ABT Maruthi Cash Memo
Ex.A5	12.06.2014	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A6		Copy of acknowledgement card

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	24.02.2014	Copy of Break-In Insurance Inspection Report
Ex.B2	24.02.2014	Copy of Insurance Policy with terms and conditions
Ex.B3		Copy of Claim Form
Ex.B4	27.05.2014	Copy of Survey Report with photographs
Ex.B5	10.06.2014	Copy of Repudiation letter along with postal receipt

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT