IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 29th day of February, 2012
Filed on 18.05.2011
Present
- Sri.Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.173/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Shamil Khan National Insurance Company Ltd.
7/154 Madathilchira Represented by its Branch Manager
Kakkazhom Muri Alappuzha
Ambalappuzha Village (By Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
Ambalappuzha Taluk
Kakkazhom P.O., Alappuzha
(By Adv. E. Hameedkunju)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri.Shamil Khan is the complainant. He has filed this complaint before the Forum on 18.5.2011 alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party. The allegations are as follows:- He is the registered owner of the vehicle No.KL 04/R 392-Maruthi 800 Car. He had taken package policy vide No.4809824 on 12.11.2008 of the opposite party. The said policy was from 12.11.2008 to 11.11.2009. He had entrusted the vehicle to drive with Sri.Remesh, who is a close friend of him. In order to sell the said vehicle to Sri.Iqbal, Mundakayam for verification, and for the journey to Mundakayam, for that purpose, the vehicle met with an accident on 20.5.2009 at Kunnanthanam, and the vehicle was fully damaged. The Keezhvazhpoor Police had registered the FIR before the Sub Divisional Court, Thiruvalla vide FIR No.235/09. He had taken the vehicle vide his application. On the basis of his information, the authorized Surveyor had inspected the said vehicle and reported before the opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,11,319/- and the Surveyor had furnished the Report before the opposite party and furnished a copy of the Report to him also. He had submitted required documents before the opposite party. After a long delay, the opposite party vide letter dt. 8.4.2010 and forwarded a letter to him. So far, the opposite party had not taken any positive steps to release the amount. Hence this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance before the Forum and filed version. In the version it is stated that they have entertained, perused and analyzed all the matters of the claim of the complainant and repudiated the claim on the basis of violation of policy condition. They have admitted the policy and its period and stated that the complainant had submitted the claim form on 12.8.2009, and stated that they had deputed the Surveyor. The Surveyor had reported that the said vehicle was in an abanded condition on the road side with some damages, and further stated that the vehicle was used for committing crime and later abanded. It is stated that the complainant had given the said vehicle for rent to one Sharath on 10.5.2009 for giving to a Gulf party by submitting a cheque. On 15.5.12009 the said Sharath had stated that the said vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages. It is further stated that the Police authorities took the vehicle and registered a crime and further stated that the vehicle was used at the time of accident on the basis of rent and insured was not aware of the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. It was against the policy condition. It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount in connection with the said accident. It is stated that after detailed verification, assessed the amount comes to Rs.40,000/- only, and that they are not liable to be pay since there is violation of policy conditions. It is further stated that the investigator had also reported the very same facts and violation of policy condition, and stated that the Surveyor had not assessed an amount of Rs.1,11,319.74. It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite
party?
2) Whether the complaint is entitled to get the amount from the opposite
party?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence – Ext.A1 series to A7 – marked. The documents – Ext.A1 series are the certified copy of the FIR of the Police and Mahazor in connection with the said accident. Ext.A2 is the copy of the affidavit and petition of the complainant filed before the RDO., Thiruvalla requesting to release the vehicle to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of the Insurance Certificate relating to the said vehicle. It shows that the said vehicle has the insurance coverage from 12.11.2008 to 11.11.2009. Ext.A4 is the copy of the certificate of Registration and the details of the vehicle and the details of the tax remittance. Ext.A5 is the copy of the Driving Licence of Sri.Remesan, the driver of the said vehicle at the time o the accident. Ext.A6 is the copy of the Report of the Surveyor regarding the damages of the said vehicle furnished to the opposite party and the complainant. It shows that the net estimated amount is Rs.1,11,319.74 towards the damages of the vehicle. Ext.A7 is the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalappuzha.
5. Opposite party has filed counter affidavit, along with the documents – Exts. B1 to B8 – marked. The documents, Ext.B1 is the claim submitted by the complainant for getting the amount. Ext.B2 is the Survey Report with photographs. Ext.B3 is the Investigation Report. Ext.B4 is the copy of the FIR. Ext.B5 is the copy of the statement of the complainant. Ext.B6 is the copy of the letter of Repudiation. Ext.B7 is the copy of the policy and Ext.B8 is the Seizher Mahazor.
6. We have heard the matter in detail and perused the documents submitted by both parties in evidence. On verification of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that the said car of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and bearing package policy No.4809824 dt. 8.11.2008 and have validity from 12.11.2008 to 11.11.2009 for covering all risk arising out of accident. In connection with the sale proceedings, the complainant sent the car through his driver to Mundakayam and it met with an accident near Pamala Kurishadi near Payippad on 20.5.2009 at 4 p.m. The Police had registered a case before the RDO., Thiruvalla. It is further alleged that the complainant filed claim petition before the opposite party for getting compensation. As per the direction of the opposite party a Surveyor had inspected the car and assessed the total damage of Rs.1,11,319/14 including labour charge and value of damaged article (Ext.A6). It is further alleged by the complainant that he contacted the opposite party several times for getting the amount as per his claim form. But by letter dt. 8.4.2010 to the complainant, the opposite party had repudiated the claim on the ground of false statement. In this respect, it is to be noticed that at the time of accident, the said vehicle have insurance coverage o f the opposite party. It is further alleged that the Surveyor had filed the detailed report. But the opposite party has not released the amount by stating unnecessary matters. On a reading of the documents produced by the complainant and the opposite party, it can be seen that the reason for rejection of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party has no merit and it cannot be treated as valid grounds for rejection. The Surveyor of the opposite party assessed the amount of damages of the said vehicle and it comes to Rs.1,11,319.74. Without paying the said amount to the complainant, the opposite party has raised unnecessary ground for rejection of the claim without any bonafides. Since the said vehicle has the insurance coverage during the period of accident, the opposite party is fully entitled to release the said amount to the complainant for a fair adjudication of this matter. The contentions raised by the opposite party in the version cannot be accepted as valid ground for rejection. The complainant is fully entitled to get the amount. The whole action taken by the opposite party is highly illegal and arbitrary. The facts and circumstances further shows that the opposite party has unnecessarily drag on the complainant before this Forum for getting the amount. On a detailed verification of the entire matter of this case, we are of the view that the opposite party has stated unnecessary contentions and denied the payment, since the claim of the complainant is highly reasonable. The opposite party cannot evaded from the liability and they are fully liable to pay the amount as per assessment of the Surveyor of the opposite party. On overall readings of the entire matter of this case and after verification of the documents, we are of the further view that the allegations of the complaint is to be treated as genuine. We are of the further view that by way of repudiated the claim of the complainant, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, for the ends of justice, we hereby directing the opposite party to release the amount of Rs.1,11,319/14 (Rupees one lakh eleven thousand three hundred nineteen and fourteen paise only) to the complainant towards the assessed amount by the Surveyor, in connection with accident and damages of the said vehicle, and further directing the opposite party to a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, sufferings, physical strain, inconvenience and loss sustained by him, due to the grossest deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite party, by way of purposeful refusal to release the claim amount to the complainant in time by way of raising unnecessary contentions without any bonafides. We further directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of this proceedings to the complainant. We further ordered that if there is any violation of this order, on the side of the opposite party, they shall pay interest at the rate of 8% to the whole amount from the date of filing of this complaint (on 18.5.2011) to till the repayment of the entire amount. We ordered that the opposite party shall comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2012.
Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 series - Certified copy of the FIR of the Police and the Mahazor
Ext.A2 - Copy of the affidavit and petition of the complainant before the
RDO., Thiruvalla
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Insurance Certificate
Ext.A4 - Copy of the certificate of Registration
Ext.A5 - Copy of the driving licence of Sri.Remesan
Ext.A6 - Copy of the Report of the Surveyor
Ext.A7 - Copy of the complaint filed by the complainant before the 1st Class
Magistrate Court, Ambalappuzha
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Claim submitted by the complainant for getting the amount
Ext.B2 - Surveyor Report with photographs
Ext.B3 - Investigation Report
Ext.B4 - Copy of the FIR
Ext.B5 - Copy of the statement of the complainant
Ext.B6 - Copy of the letter of repudiation
Ext.B7 - Copy of the policy
Ext.B8 - Seizher Mahazor
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
