JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is owner of the vehicle Model Maruti SWIFT Saloon Car being registered No. WB 20G 9037 and same is insured under op being policy No. 100303/31/12/6100013931.  Fact remains that complainant’s vehicle at the time of parking it collided with wall of the building and was damaged and that was immediately intimated to the op through agent and op sent his surveyor  to inspect the damage of the vehicle and estimated the damage of Rs. 5,500/-.  Thereafter complainant got the vehicle repaired and the bill of Rs. 7,500/- was raised by the M/s Baidya Auto Service and same was handed over to the op on 07.01.2014.  But complainant was shocked and surprised to receive a letter dated 28.01.2014 vide Ref No. 4195 and in the said letter the op repudiated the claim on flimsy ground and op stated that the settled amount is less than the policy excess amount so they have no liability in respect of this claim.

          Accordingly complainant caused a notice on 04.03.2014 and asked the op to pay the damage of Rs. 50,000/-.  Complainant further stated that reason given by the op to repudiate the claim is illegal, arbitrary wrongful and not correct in the eye of law.  Complainant further submitted that only for the purpose for not giving the claim a very meager amount they have the liability to pay Rs. 5,000 about the said repair but actually the repairing cost was Rs. 7,500/- and in such a way they have adopted unfair trade practice and deceived the complainant and for which complainant has filed this complaint praying for relief and redressal.

          On the other hand op Insurance Company by filing written statement submitted that the policy document was issued on 17.02.2013 and delivered to the complainant and the policy clearly shows both the imposed and compulsory excess on the face of the schedule of the policy and the complainant against that did not raise any objection.

          Since the policy was very old car and there was a break of insurance ops put an imposed excess of Rs. 5,000/- over and above the compulsory excess of Rs. 1,000/- to minimize their loss for break of insurance of the car of the complainant as per their policy procedure and system.  It is further submitted that practically the present insurance policy No. 100303/31/12/6100031 was covered for the period from 16.02.2013 to 15.02.2014.  But fact remains that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from EASB on 28.02.2012.  The earlier insurance policy was issued by Royal Sundaram also expired on 28.02.2012 and complainant plied the car without insurance violating the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act till he took insurance from the present insurance company and for that purpose this clause was imposed excess of Rs. 5,000/- over and above the compulsory excess of Rs. 1,000/- to minimize the loss for break of insurance of the car of the complainant as per customary procedure and system.

          Moreover it is submitted that the loss or damage was Rs. 4,450/- as assessed by the surveyor deduction depreciation as was agreed by the complainant lesser than the total excess of Rs. 6,000/- being imposed and compulsory excess clubbed together, does not fall under the ambit of any liability of the ops as per the terms of the policy and those ops had no other alternative but to repudiate the claim showing full details of repudiation in their letter to this effect addressed to complainant.  So, there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op for which the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                        Decision with reasons

          On in depth study of the complaint and written version and also considering the present policy on the basis of which complainant has made such claim it is clear that there was a clause against excess Rs. 5,000/- and ultimately excess zero compulsory excess of Rs. 1,000/- and truth is that prior to this insurance policy for about one year there was no insurance policy of the vehicle and practically last insurance policy of the said vehicle expired on 28.02.2012 and complainant purchased the said vehicle on that date.  Thereafter there was no insurance policy of the said vehicle as per Motor Vehicle Act.  But subsequently complainant purchased the present policy on 16.02.2013 that means about one year there was no valid policy for which that clauses were imposed as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and complainant after knowing about the terms and conditions purchased the present policy.  So, it is binding upon the complainant who cannot go beyond that condition as already imposed for not producing any valid policy prior to purchase of the present policy in respect of present vehicle of the complainant and truth is that the said vehicle was aged about 7 years on the date of accident. 

So, considering that clauses of the policy and also considering the assessment made by the surveyor it is clear that the loss of the damage was assessed to the extent of Rs. 4,550/- and no doubt surveyor deducted depreciation amount and assessed the said damage and that was agreed by the complainant for which compulsory excess that is less than total excess of Rs. 6,000/- that being imposed on compulsory excess clubbed together.  So, invariably complainant is not entitled to any claim as per policy condition.  Complainant has not challenged any part of the policy condition as illegal or complainant never raised any objection about application of that clause.

          After considering the report of the surveyor or loss assessor it is clear that loss assessor assessed labour charges of Rs. 4,450/- and loss excess Rs. 1,000/- and net assessed loss was Rs. 3,450/-.  Thereafter loss assessor assessed the details of assessment and came to a finding that date of accident was 30.01.2012 but first date of purchase of the vehicle was on 04.01.2006.  So, at the date of accident age of the vehicle was more than six years and 27 days so proportionately on every item 40 percent was deducted, and total Rs. 500/- was deducted and accordingly the total labour charges after depreciation etc. was fixed at Rs. 4,450/- and complainant has not challenged the said surveyor’s report but relied upon that.

Considering that report and complainant’s own version in the complaint it is clear that complainant accepted that report of the loss assessor and loss assessor assessed the loss or damage after scrutinizing the terms and conditions of the policy and only deducted Rs. 1,000/- as less due to the age of the said car and accordingly it is found that the said amount is less than the policy excess amount and as per terms of the policy the complainant is not entitled to any claim and op Insurance Company has no liability in respect of said claim for which the op rightly repudiated the claim and in this regard after critical appreciation of the said policy the present fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that there is no laches, negligence or deficiency or any arbitrary act or unfair trade practice on the part of the op for repudiating the claim.  But as per policy conditions, complainant practically is not entitled to get any claim and for which the claim was repudiated and that was no doubt justified and for which the complaint fails.

Hence, it is

                                                 ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the ops but without any cost.