Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

326/2007

D.Rukumani - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.Palaiappan

11 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 25.07.2007

                                                                          Date of Order : 11.01.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (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

CC. NO.326/2007

THURSDAY THE 11^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2018

Mrs. D.Rukumani,

No.2/85, Seventhapatti Post,

Thathiengarpet,

Musuri, Thirchy 621 214.                        .. Complainant.

 

                                      ..Vs..

1.  The Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Shriram Site Office,

Guindy,

Chennai.

 

2. The Manager,

Vinayaga Tempo,

NO.2 –J, Bharathy Road,

Behind A.V.R. Pertrol Bank,

Cuddalore -1                                            .. Opposite parties. 

 

 

Counsel for complainant                 :  M/s. A. Palaniappan  

Counsel for opposite party-1          :  M/s. S.Arunkumar & others

Counsel for opposite party-2          :  party in person

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 seeking direction to pay insurance amount of Rs.1,11,164.61  and to hand over the property document and Rs.1,00,000/- as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.25,000/- as travel expenses and to pay cost of the complaint.

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

          The complainant submit that  she is the owner of the Tempo Trax vehicle TN 28L 4367 insured with the 1^st opposite party  under policy No.NO.501602/31/04/6313104  for the period from 17.6.2004 to 16.6.2005. On 19.5.2005  when the vehicle was driven by  the complainant’s son-in-law Mr. Vijaykumar from Chennai to Thuriayur met with an accident between Villupuram and Ulundurpet.  Immediately the complainant lodged a complaint before the police station and submitted claim form to the 1^st opposite party after due intimation.  The complainant further state that the 1^st opposite party appointed a surveyor who has investigated the vehicle and directed to make suitable repair and the vehicle was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party on 23.5.2005.  The surveyor submitted the report for a sum of Rs.1,08,000/-.  Further the complainant pleaded state that the 2^nd opposite party directed to pay the amount of Rs.123819/-. .  But the complainant expended a sum of Rs.3250/- towards towing charges,  also paid a sum of Rs.20,679 and a sum of Rs.19,000/- as advance.   Further the complainant state that on 17.7.2006 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.54498/-  and issued blank cheque for Rs.49,000/- along with original document of the property.    Further the complainant state that even after submission of due claim form with all records the 1^st opposite party insurance company has not reimbursed the amount expended towards service of the vehicle.     As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. 

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st  opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 1^st  opposite party submit that the  urveyor of the insurance company informed that the 1^st opposite party will sanction  a sum of Rs.1,11,164/-  absolutely false.   This opposite party  is given to understand that on 2.1.2006  the 2^nd opposite  party lodged a complaint against the complainant regarding the illegal removal of the vehicle and theft of articles  kept in the premises of the 2^nd opposite party. Without prejudice this opposite party state that in these circumstances unless both parties jointly declare that they have settled the dispute between themselves and no claim would be made further against this opposite party, in respect of the above said damage this opposite party is ready and willing to settle a sum of Rs.1,07,923/-.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

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

The 2^nd opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 2^nd opposite party submit that the it is true that the vehicle (TN-28-L-4367) owned by the complainant, which met with an accident was handed over to the opposite party on 23.5.2005 for service work.   It was informed to the complainant  that the estimated cost of repair work was Rs.1,25,474/- on 26.5.2005 by the opposite party and asked for an advance amount of 50% of the total cost.   But the complainant paid only Rs.27,000/- on 6.9.2005, Rs.10,000/- on 28.9.2005 and Rs.2000/- on 4.10.2005.    This opposite party denies the allegation made that no work has not been started.  Actually the complainant only demanded to replace a New Cabin Complete set which cost Rs.73,642/- was bought from Maharashtra with the consent of the complainant and fitted for Rs.71,327/- only in consideration.   Because of this New Cabin work the work was delayed.   At that time the balance to be paid by the complainant was Rs.1,04,498/-.  Further the 2^nd opposite party state that on 31.12.2005  when the vehicle was kept in the shed  of 2^nd opposite party, Mr. Vijaya Kumar the son-in-law of the complainant removed the vehicle illegally along with a cash amount of Rs.3000/-, two tyres, one exide battery, office receipt book, office rubber stamps,  Job card and  a complete set of stepney.  On 2.1.2006 the matter was reported to the new town police station, Cuddalore, since  1.1.2006 was a holiday.  The police took steps and recovered the vehicle from the complainant on 4.1.2006  along with  Mr. Vijaya kumar who admitted the alleged crime and apologized as per Ex.B2 and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 26.1.2006 thereby the 2^nd opposite party has received only Rs.89,000/-.  Further the 2^nd opposite party state that letter dated 12.7.2006 sent by this opposite party to the complainant,  and 1^st opposite party, and receipt No.21, dated 11.7.2006 for Rs.54,498/-, the 2^nd opposite party’s invoice No.544 dated 12.7.2006 for Rs.1,44,498/- are forged.   This opposite party came to know that the complainant handed over the vehicle to the financier.  In this connection this opposite party is entitled to recover the balance amount from the 1^st opposite party in this case.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A.10. marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed Ex.B1 to Ex.B11   marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,11,164 /- from the 1^st opposite party towards repair charges as per surveyor report with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as prayed for ?

2. Whether the 1^st opposite party is liable to hand over the original property document of the complainant with a sum of Rs.75,000/-  towards compensation for deficiency in service and travel expenses as prayed  for ?

3. Whether the 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay  a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service with cost as prayed for ?

 

6.      POINTS 1 to 3 :

          The complainant has not preferred to file any written arguments and has not turned up to advance any oral arguments also.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed their respective written arguments  Perused the records  (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  The complainant pleaded in the complaint and contended  that she is the owner of the Tempo Trax vehicle TN 28L 4367 insured with the 1^st opposite party  under policy No.NO.501602/31/04/6313104  for the period from 17.6.2004 to 16.6.2005 is admitted.  On 19.5.2005  when the vehicle was driven by  the complainant’s son-in-law Mr. Vijaykumar from Chennai to Thuriayur met with an accident between Villupuram and Ulundurpet.  Immediately the complainant lodged a complaint before the police station and submitted claim form to the 1^st opposite party after due intimation.  The complainant further pleaded and stated in the proof affidavit that the 1^st opposite party appointed a surveyor who has investigated the vehicle and directed to make suitable repair and the vehicle was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party on 23.5.2005.  The surveyor also repeatedly investigated the vehicle and submitted the report vide Ex.B6 for a sum of Rs.1,08,000/-.  Further the complainant pleaded and contended that the 2^nd opposite party directed to pay the amount of Rs.123819/-.as per Ex.A6.  But the complainant expended a sum of Rs.3250/- towards towing charges as per Ex.A4.  The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.20,679 vide Ex.A5, and a sum of Rs.19,000/- as advance.   Further the complainant pleaded and contended that on 17.7.2006 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.54498/- as per Ex.A9 and issued blank cheque for Rs.49,000/- along with original document of the property.  But there is no record.    Further the complainant pleaded and contended that even after submission of due claim form with all records the 1^st opposite party insurance company has not reimbursed the amount expended towards service of the vehicle.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,11,164/- as per the report of the surveyor with interest at the rate of 18% pa. and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service by way of delay in settling the claim.  

7.     Further the complainant contended that the 2^nd opposite party has not returned the original title deed of the property and blank cheque even after delayed in repairing the vehicle.   But the complainant has not produced any record.  On the other hand it is seen from the records that the complainant through her son-in-law Mr. Vijayakumar illegally removed the vehicle on 31.12.2005 from the custody of the 2^nd opposite party along with a cash amount of Rs.3,000/- and receipt books etc with two tyres.  Due complaint also has been lodged by the 2^nd opposite party before Cuddalore Town Police Station and CSR was registered.   Police after investigation traced out the vehicle and brought the vehicle along with the said Mr.Vijayakumar.   At that time Mr.Vijayakumar  had admitted  the illegal removal of the vehicle.  On compromise, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.54,498/- on 11.7.2006 as per Ex.A9.   Mr. Vijayakumar also submitted a apology letter Ex.B2  to the 2^nd opposite party stating that “ 3.1.2006  m‹W Kj‹ Kjyhf %.800¡F nyhL V‰¿a ãiyæš t©oia vdJ Å£oš ãW¤Â it¤ÂUªnj‹.   m‹W ÏuÎ Rkh® 12 kâaséš fhtš Jiwædç‹ cjéÍl‹ jh§fŸ tªJ v‹idÍ«, vdJ t©oiaÍ« if¥g‰¿ flÿ® miH¤J tªÔ®fŸ, nkY« eh‹ j§fŸ gâ kidæš fsthoa bghU£fisÍ« (gz« jéu) x¥gil¤nj‹.  j§fŸ ã®thf Ïa¡Fe® ÂU. f©z‹ mt®fŸ vd¡F më¤j (Áw¥ò rYifahd) gâkidæš J§F« trÂia jthwf ga‹gL¤Â  äf¥bgça k‹å¡fKoahj F‰w¤ij brŒJé£nl‹.      eh‹ j§fŸ ãYit¤ bjhifæš 50% I fh¥Õ£L cjé¤bjhif _ykhfΫ, ÛÂia 12 khj fhy jtizæY« j§fS¡F bry¤j vd¡F thŒ¥ò jUkhW gâÎl‹ nt©L»nw‹.  vd¡F Ïij jéu ntW tê vJΫ Ïšiy.   ($uh« igdh‹ìY«  50%  ãYit bjhif¡F mtfhr« jUtjhf thŒ¥gë¤JŸsh®fŸ.)  vdnt, eh‹ vdJ  ÂwikiaÍ«, ciH¥igÍ«, m‹ghd tho¡ifahs®fisÍ« ga‹gL¤Â ã¢rakhf j§fS¡F ãYitia ó®¤Â brŒJéLnt‹  v‹w vdJ e«Ã¡if¡F jh§fŸ MjuÎ jªJ, vdJ kWthœÎ¡F cjé brŒÍkhW j§fŸ ghj« tz§» gâÎl‹ nf£L¡bfhŸ»nw‹.”   proves that the complainant  has to pay the balance amount  to the 2^nd opposite party.   

8.     The 1^st opposite party pleaded and contended that the allegation that the surveyor of the insurance company informed that the 1^st opposite party will sanction  a sum of Rs.1,11,164/-  absolutely false.   This opposite party  is given to understand that on 2.1.2006 as per Ex.B1  the 2^nd opposite  party lodged a complaint against the representative of the complainant regarding the illegal removal of the vehicle and theft of articles  kept in the premises of the 2^nd opposite party.   The letter dated 20.12.2005, 3.1.2006, 20.12006, and 27.4.2006 sent by  2^nd opposite party and the final survey report dated 2.1.2006 Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 proves  that the complainant has not performed her part and there was a dispute between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party which dragged the matter and thereby this opposite party is not able to settle the amount.  There is no delay in settling the clam by the 1^st opposite party  The 2^nd opposite party sent letter dated 25.5.2006 vide Ex.B11  made a claim directly with the 1^st opposite party to settle the amount.  The complainant also by letter dated 17.7.2006 was insisting to pay to the Financier M/s. Sriram Finance, Salem for such payment the 1^st opposite party took sincere efforts along with investigator and 2^nd opposite party to process the claim,  but ended in vain.  This opposite party is ready to settle the claim for  sum of  Rs.1,07,923/- subject to the order of this forum.   The contention of the  2^nd opposite party is that the impugned vehicle was handed over to  this opposite party only on 23.5.2005 for service.  The estimated costs of Rs.1,25,474/- and an advance amount of 50% of the total cost to be paid.  But the complainant paid only a part amount of Rs.39,000/-.   During the process of servicing   the vehicle as per requisition made by the complainant a new cabin set cost of Rs.71,327/-  was brought from Maharashtra; hence there was  a delay.   Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that on 31.12.2005  when the vehicle was kept in the shed  of 2^nd opposite party, Mr. Vijaya Kumar the son-in-law of the complainant removed the vehicle illegally along with a cash amount of Rs.3000/-, two tyres, one exide battery, office receipt book, office rubber stamps,  Job card and  a complete set of stepney.  On 2.1.2006 the matter was reported to the new town police station, Cuddalore, since  1.1.2006 was a holiday.  The police took steps and recovered the vehicle from the complainant on 4.1.2006  along with  Mr. Vijaya kumar who admitted the alleged crime and apologized as per Ex.B2 and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 26.1.2006 thereby the 2^nd opposite party has received only Rs.89,000/-.  Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that letter dated 12.7.2006 sent by this opposite party to the complainant,  and 1^st opposite party, and receipt No.21, dated 11.7.2006 for Rs.54,498/-, the 2^nd opposite party’s invoice No.544 dated 12.7.2006 for Rs.1,44,498/- are forged.   As per Ex.B2 the said Mr.Vijaya kumar admitted the illegal removal of seal, invoice book etc. there is  every possibility  of forging the  above said records  also.   Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  

9.     Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the 1^st opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- towards the settlement of the claim in which a sum of  Rs.36474/- to be paid to the 2^nd opposite party directly and the balance amount of Rs.71,526/- to be paid to the complainant and shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.   No order as against the 2^nd opposite party.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  1^st opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- towards the settlement of the claim in which a sum of Rs.36474/- to be paid to the 2^nd opposite party directly and the  balance amount of Rs.71526/- (Rupees Seventy One thousand five hundred and twenty six only) to the complainant and shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.   No order as against the 2^nd opposite party.   

The aboveamounts shall be payable within 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 Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^h day of January 2018. 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDNET.

COMPLAINANT’S SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 28.6.2004 - Copy of Certificate of registration.

Ex.A2- 24.7.2004 - Copy of certificate of insurance.

Ex.A3- 24.5.2005 - Copy of receipt issued by recovery service.

Ex.A4- 26.5.2005 - Copy of Motor Claim Form.

Ex.A5- 28.12.2005- Copy of Estimate of 2^nd opp. party.

Ex.A6-             - Copy of Final report.

Ex.A7- 10.5.2006 - Copy of communication sent by the  1^st opp. party.

Ex.A8- 12.7.2006 - Copy of communication sent by the 2^nd. Opp. party.

Ex.A9- 17.7.2006 - Copy of letter to the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A10- 4.11.2006- Copy of legal notice.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:   

Ex.B1- 2.1.2006    - Copy of complaint in C.S.R.NO.3/06.

Ex.B2- 5.1.2006    - Copy of letter by the complainant.

Ex.B3- 13.7.2006  - Copy of notice.

Ex.B4- 27.7.2006  - Copy of reply

Ex.B5- 4.11.2006 -  Copy of legal notice.

Ex.B6- 2.1.2006  -  Copy of survey report.

Ex.B7- 3.1.2006  - Copy of letter by 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B8- 20.1.2006 - Copy of letter by 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B9- 29.3.2006 - Copy of investigation report.

Ex.B10- 27.4.2006- Copy of letter by 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B11- 25.5.2006 – Copy of letter by 2^nd opposite party.

 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDNET.