IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.157/13 (Filed on 10.12.2013)
Between:
Pratish Kumar. M.R.,
Kizhakke Manthuruthil,
Neerettupuram P.O.,
Thalavady Village,
Alappuzha District,
Pin – 689 571. … Complainant.
And:
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
3 Middleton Street,
Post Box No. 9229,
Kolkatha – 700 071.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, First Floor,
Ennakkattil Estate,
P.B. No. 37,
Near KSRTC Bus Stand,
Thiruvalla – 689 101. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. P.P. Mohammed Mustapha)
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is the registered owner of a 2012 Model Bajaj Pulsar Motor Bike bearing registration No.KL-04 AD/2375 and the said vehicle is insured with the opposite parties from 18.10.2012 to 17.10.2013. While so, the said vehicle met with an accident on 05.02.2013 by hitting it on a KSEB post and the vehicle sustained extensive damages. The accident was reported to the opposite parties and it was taken to Chetak Bajaj workshop, which is an authorized workshop of the Bajaj Company. The repairs of the vehicle was done by them and they issued a bill for Rs.52,250/-. The said bill along with the required records was also submitted before the opposite parties. But they disallowed the entire claim and sanctioned an amount of Rs.25,740/-. The decision of the opposite party is arbitrary and unilateral. Since the amount sanctioned is very low, the complainant did not accepted the said amount. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of the complainant’s claim for Rs.52,250/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for the realization of the cost of this proceedings.
3. The 1st opposite party is exparte.
4. 2nd opposite party filed their version with the following main contentions: 2nd opposite party admitted the validity of the policy in question, the accident and the complainant’s claim form. According to them, on getting the claim form from the complainant they deputed their surveyor to assess the loss who inspected the vehicle and prepared a report dated24.07.2013 and recommended to settle the claim for Rs.25,740/- for the loss of the vehicle and Rs.2,800/- for the damage of the electric post. Subsequently, the opposite party advised the complainant several time to receive the said amount by executing the voucher for full and final settlement of the claim. At last a letter dated 23.10.2013 was also sent to the complainant. But the complainant refused to accept the said amount by executing the voucher. The assessment made by the surveyor is on the base of the policy conditions and hence the opposite party is not able to settle the complainant’s claim of Rs.52,250/- as such ignoring the terms and conditions of the policy. So the exorbitant claim of the complainant is unsustainable and baseless and he is not entitled to get any compensation as there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. With the above contentions, 2nd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PW1, DW1 and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B4. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s case is that his Motor Bike bearing Reg.No.KL-04 AD/2375 had valid insurance of the opposite parties and the said bike met with an accident and sustained heavy damages. The vehicle was repaired at an authorized workshop after intimating the accident to the opposite parties. After the repairs the authorized workshop issued the final bill for Rs.52,250/-. Thereafter the complainant claimed the said amount and an amount of Rs.4,486/- paid to the KSEB for the damage of electric post damaged due to the accident. But the opposite parties allowed only Rs.25,740/- which is much less than the actual losses sustained to the complainant. Since the vehicle is having a valid policy at the time of the accident and the said accident is not due to any fault of the complainant, opposite parties are liable to indemnify the loss of the complainant. But they are not prepared to indemnify the actual loss of the complainant though he had submitted all relevant documents before the opposite parties. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and he had produced certain documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the copy of the G.D entry in respect of the accident. Ext.A2 series (A2 to A2(b) ) are the different receipts for Rs.4,486/- issued in the name of the complainant by KSEB. Ext.A3 is the copy of the policy in question. Ext.A4 series (A4 to A4(b) ) are the copies of retail invoices dated 15.05.2013 issued in the name of the complainant by M/s.Chetak Bajaj, Thiruvalla being the final bill for the repairs. Ext.A5 is the full and final settlement voucher issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant for accepting the amount sanctioned by the opposite parties.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that on getting the information of the accident and on getting the claim form and other relevant documents like estimate and the final bill etc. of the authorized workshop they have deputed their surveyor for assessing the loss of the vehicle. Accordingly, the surveyor inspected the vehicle and submitted his report dated 24.07.2013. The surveyor recommended to settle the claim for Rs.25,740/- for the loss of the vehicle and Rs.2,800/- towards the damage of the electric post. The surveyor made his assessment on the basis of the terms and conditions of the policy and on the basis of the estimate and the final bill of the authorized workshop and the opposite party cannot pay any amount other than the amount assessed by the surveyor. It is further seen from the survey report that the accident was not a major accident. So the opposite party directed the complainant to accept the said amount by executing full and final settlement voucher. But the complainant was not ready to accept the same. In the circumstances, they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to get any amount other than the sanctioned amount.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the Manager of the 2nd opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts.B1 to B4. Apart from DW1, the insurance surveyor was examined as DW2. Ext.B1 is the policy certificate and the terms and conditions attached to the policy certificate. Ext.B2 is the survey report dated 24.07.2013 prepared by the insurance surveyor (DW2). Ext.B3 series (9 in number) are various photographs of the vehicle in question. Ext.B4 is the estimate prepared by Chetak Motors in respect of the repairs of the damaged vehicle.
11. On the basis of the available materials on record, it is found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the validity of the policy and the accident damages of the vehicle and its repairs. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of the damages. According to the complainant, the authorized workshop where the vehicle was repaired, collected an amount of Rs. 52,250/- for the repairs and KSE Board charged Rs. 4,486/- and he is entitled to get the said amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy. But according to the opposite parties, the amount claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and they cannot sanction the entire amount claimed by him and they cannot sanction any amount beyond the damages assessed by their surveyor which is Rs. 25,740/- for the damages of the vehicle and Rs. 2,800/- for the damages of the electric post. The argument of the opposite parties is that the accident is not a major accident and the repairs and replacement done by the workshop is not corresponding to the actual damages sustained in the accident and the final bill is not corresponding to the estimate prepared by the workshop. But the argument of the complainant is that the estimate prepared by the authorized workshop is on the basis of the external visible damages and it does not includes the internal damages which are not visible at the time of preparing the estimate and hence the estimate cannot be treated as the yard stick for assessing the damages of the vehicle.
12. In view of the contentions and arguments of the parties, it is pertinent to note that either the complainant or the opposite parties have not adduced any cogent evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. The complainant is solely relying on Ext. A2 series electricity bills and Ext. A4 series retail invoices and labour bill. At the same time, opposite parties are solely relying on Ext. B2 survey report. Further, opposite parties admitted that some mistakes are occurred in their survey report in respect of the price of silencer and the damages assessed for the electric post etc. At the same time, complainant also failed to adduce any cogent and independent evidence showing that the entire amount spent by him as per Ext. A4 series are warranted in the circumstances of the accident. Further the amount claimed by the complainant is his total expenses which is not allowable as per the terms and conditions o the policy. So this Forum is not in a position to pass an order totally in favour of the complainant or totally against the opposite parties. Therefore, fresh assessment is required in view of the mistakes in the surveyor’s report admitted by the opposite parties and in view of the actual expenses met by the complainant for compensating KSE Board and for repairing his vehicle.
13. In the circumstances, this complaint can be disposed with the following directions:
- Opposite parties are directed to re-assess the loss and damages afresh with a lenient view considering the mistakes seen in Ext. B2 survey report and on the basis of the final bill which is marked as Ext. A4 series.
- It is further directed to pay the entire cost met by the complainant for compensating KSE Board as the complainant is not bound to bear the depreciation of the KSEB post on the basis of its age.
- Opposite parties are directed to comply this order within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- In the nature and circumstances of this case, no orders for cost and compensation.
14. In the result, this complaint is dismissed with the above directions.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of April, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Pratish Kumar. M.R.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the G.D entry in respect of the accident.
A2 series (A2 to A2(b) : Different receipts for Rs.4,486/- issued in the name
of the complainant by KSEB.
A3 : Copy of the insurance policy.
A4 series (A4 to A4(b) : Copies of retail invoices dated 15.05.2013 issued in
the name of the complainant by M/s.Chetak Bajaj, Thiruvalla.
A5 : Full and final settlement voucher dated 23.10.2013 issued by the
opposite parties in the name of the complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Jacob Varghese.
DW2 : P.P. Dheerasimhan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Policy certificate with terms and conditions.
B2 : Survey report dated 24.07.2013 prepared by the insurance
surveyor.
B3 series (9 in number) : Photographs of the vehicle.
B4 : Estimate prepared by Chetak Motors in respect of the repairs of
the damaged vehicle.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Pratish Kumar. M.R., Kizhakke Manthuruthil, Neerettupuram
P.O., Thalavady Village, Alappuzha District, Pin – 689 571. (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Corporate Office,3 Middleton
Street, Post Box No. 9229, Kolkatha – 700 071.
(3) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, First Floor,
Ennakkattil Estate, P.B. No. 37, Near KSRTC Bus Stand,
Thiruvalla – 689 101.
(4) The Stock File.
