Date of filing : 11-05-2011
Date of order : 16-03-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
C.C. 108/2010
Dated this, the 16th day of March 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Vinu.M,
S/o. Kunhiraman,
Mandil House, Ajannur.Po. Kasaragod.Dist. } Complainant
(Adv. George John Plamoottil, Kasaragod)
National Insurance Co.Ltd, } Opposite party
Divisional Office, VIII, 2nd floor,
Mamnaji Centre, S7, Thiru-Vi-KA,
Industrial Estate, 2nd floor, Chennai.600034.
(Adv. U.S.Balan, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER
That the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL13D 2455. The vehicle was hypothecated to M/s Shriram Investment Ltd.. The complainant insured the above vehicle with the opposite party. On 6-2-2004 the vehicle met with an accident at a place called Andikambini near Kozhikode. Due to the said accident the complainant’s vehicle suffered heavy damages. Immediately after the accident the complainant intimated the said accident to the concerned police station and the opposite party. The opposite party assessed the damages of the vehicle through their authorized surveyor. The vehicle was garaged and got it repaired by spending approximately a sum of `75,000/-. That the complainant submitted the claim petition before the opposite party along with the required documents. There after no response from the opposite party about the claim petition. Then the complainant complained into the matter and the opposite party informed that the claim is under process and it will be released within no time and the complainant was waiting for a long time but there was no response from the opposite party. The complainant further submits that the claim petition was submitted before the Kasaragod branch office of the opposite party and from the branch office it was told that the claim petition to be processed from their Chennai Office. But so far no response from the opposite party hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.
2. The complainant taken on the file and notice was served to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed vakalat and version.
3. According to opposite party complainant is barred by law of limitation. The accident was on 6-2-2004 and the complaint is filed on 26-5-2010. Hence the complaint is barred by limitation.
4. The opposite party further submits that after scrutinizing the claim form it was found that the original vehicular documents were not produced either by the insured or by the financier. Then they sent a registered letter dt.15-7-2005 giving 15 days time to the complainant requesting to submit the same before the opposite party. Since no original vehicular documents were produced either by the insured or by the financier the opposite party treated the claim as closed by intimating closure or claim, which is to be treated as repudiation letter. The said repudiation letter was sent to the complainant by registered post on 8-9-2006. Hence under law the complainant has to file the complaint within 6 months.
5. The opposite party further submitted that this court also has no territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. The accident was outside the district and the survey and the garage were the vehicle repaired and the place where the claim petition submitted before Chennai Office are all outside Kasaragod district. Moreover, the policy was obtained by the complainant from Chennai office and no transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this count. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
6. The opposite party admitted the policy is in force and but denied the plea of the complainant that he has spent 75,000/- for repair of the vehicle.
7. After considering the above facts the following issues were raised for consideration.
1) Whether the complaint is barred by law of limitation?
2) Whether this court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try the case?
3) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4) If so, what is the relief and order as to costs and compensation?
8. The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1 the complainant and Exts A1 to A4 documents on the side of the complainant and Exts B1 to B5 in the side of the opposite party. The complainant was cross-examined by the opposite party. No oral evidence was adduced b y the opposite party.
9. Issue No.1.
Here the first question raised for consideration is whether this complaint is barred by law of limitation?
10. Admittedly the accident took place on 6-2-2004 and the claim form submitted by the complainant was on 12-2-2004. The dispute is whether the claim of the complainant is repudiated and the same is intimated to him. Here the complainant is concerned the claim is not repudiated so far. Whenever he approached the opposite party and enquired into the matter it was told that claim is under process. According to him he has submitted all vehicular documents which are required for the claim to the opposite party they scrutinized the claim petition submitted by the complainant and found some of the documents were not produced by the complainant and then the opposite party sent a registered notice i.e. Ext.B2 asking to furnish the relevant documents within 15 days of receipt of notice. But the complainant failed to submit the documents. Hence the claim of complainant is closed and the closure is treated as repudiation and the same is informed to the complainant by registered post. The copy of the letter of closure is produced and marked as Ext.B3. But the opposite party failed to produce the document showing the service of Exts. B2 and B3 to complainant. The specific case of the complainant is that till the date of complaint the opposite party has not repudiated the claim. The repudiation will be effected as far the complainant is concerned when it comes his knowledge. According him he has not received any letter or information from the opposite party. Opposite party has also not produced any document to show that the repudiation is duly intimated to the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant is not repudiated so far. Hence no time starts for filing the complaint. The complaint is maintainable and it is not barred by limitation. The 1st issue is answered accordingly.
11. Issue No.2. This issue is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the complaint. Here the opposite party is having branch office at Kasaragod and according to the complaint the claim petition is submitted by him through the branch office at Kasaragod. Hence this Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case.
12. Issue No.3. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case discussed above were of the opinion that there is no repudiation of claim by the opposite party. That amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
13. Issue No.4. Here the accident took place on 6-2-2004 and the claim form is submitted before the opposite party on 12-2-2004 by the complainant. The surveyor also inspected the vehicle and filed his report. i.e. Ext.B4. Due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party the complainant was waiting for his claim for a period of about 7 years. Moreover, he has availed loan from the financier for that he has to pay interest also. According to the complainant he has spent `75,000/- as repair charges. But he failed to produce any bill issued by the garage centre. The only document available before the Forum to assess the damage is Ext.B4 the surveyor’s report. In Ext.B4 the surveyor assed the approximate damage is `15,761.50 plus `1000/- as lifting charges. Altogether the net damage is `16,761.50. It is fit case for granting interest to the amount claimed.
14. In Manavendra Sing V. National Insurance Co. Ltd (1(2011) CPJ 78NC) the Hon’ble National Commission observed that if the repudiation of claim is delayed it is appropriate that the complainant should get interest on decretal amount after five months from filing claim with opposite party.
Hence the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of `16,761/- @ 9% interest per annum from 13th July 2004 i.e five months after lodging the claim till payment and a cost of `5,000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of complaint till payment. Failing which the amount of `16,761/- will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.25-1-2010 Copy of Lawyer notice.
A2. Postal receipt.
A3. Acknowledgement card.
A4. 13-02-2004 copy of certificate issued by Sub-Inspector of Plice, Traffic Unit, Koyilandy.
B1. Motor Claim Form
B2. 15-7-05 letter issued by National Insurance Co.Ltd to complainant.
B3.8-3-2006 Letter issued by National Insurance Co.Ltd to Complainant.
B4. Survey Report.
B5.Commercial Vehicles Package Policy.
PW1. Vinu.M.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
