IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 376/09 DATED 17.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Revanna. B, S/o Bettegowda, No.217, 6th Main Road, 17th Cross, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. N.M, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Divisional Office, New Muslim Hostel Complex, 1st Main Road, Saraswathipuram, Mysore.<br /> 2. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., DO 10, Dwaraka, 2nd Floor, 79, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai (TN) 600034.<br /> 3. Shri Ram Transport Finance Co., Ltd., No.133, 2nd Floor, Shika Towers, Ram Vilas Road, Mysore.(Deleted)<br /> ( By Sri. B.S.P. Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 12.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 27.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 17.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 20 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.84,945/- regarding damage to the vehicle and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, the complainant is owner of Goods Carrier bearing No.KA-09-9650. Complainant availed finance from Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, to purchase the vehicle. The vehicle has been insured with opposite parties under policy No.412000/31/2006/32791. The said comprehensive policy was in force from 12.01.2006 to 11.01.2007. The vehicle met with an accident on 04.02.2006, near Bilikere police station, Mysore Taluk. Crime No.90/2006 has been registered. In the accident, the vehicle was badly damaged. Complainant informed about the accident and damages the vehicle to the opposite parties. Opposite parties have appointed authorized surveyor to inspect the vehicle and to assess the damages. The surveyor accordingly submitted the report, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-D. The vehicle was left for repairs at M. Radhakrishna Body Builders, Mysore. The estimated cost of the repairs is 84,945/-. The complainant submitted said estimate along with claim form and necessary documents to the opposite parties. In spite of the said claim and personal visits to the first opposite party, for settlement of the claim, the opposite parties have not responded. They are postponing to settle the said claim. Further, it is alleged that, the complainant has purchased the vehicle availing loan from the financier and since, the opposite parties have not settle the claim, the vehicle remained with garage and consequently, the complainant has put loss etc.,. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite parties have filed version stating that, they do not know certain facts alleged in the complaint and hence, it is contended that, the complainant may be put to strict proof. As regards the fact that, the vehicle was insured with opposite party is admitted. However, it is contended that, in the computerized copy of the policy, the date is scratched and over written. It is stated since the policy is originated from Chennai, on verifying the same additional version at the later stage will be filed. Then, it is contended that, the claim has been alleged by the complainant only on 18.03.2008. There is inordinate delay of more than 3 years in meeting the claim. Also it is contended that, this Forum has no jurisdiction as the claim has been repudiated at Chennai, which gave cause of action as alleged. Also it is contended that, by summary procedure, the claim cannot be decided as it requires elaborate evidence including cross-examination of the witnesses. It is stated that, after lapse of 3 years 7 months, from the date of the accident, legal notice was sent and hence, the complaint is highly belated. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, the Divisional Manager has filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative. <br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Before proceeding to considered the loss to the vehicle claimed by the complainant, certain other aspects needs to be noted here.<br /> <br /> 8. The accident occurred on 04.02.2006. The complainant has submitted claim form on 18.02.2008 i.e., after more than two years. Certain copies of the bills are produced by the complainant, which are dated 28.06.2008 i.e., three months subsequent to the date, submission of claim. Thereafter, legal notice was issued on 22.09.2009. Thus, at the out set, the opposite party has raised doubt regarding genuineness of the claim. For various reasons, at this stage, we feel it not necessary to make further discussion and comment on the point.<br /> <br /> 9. Most important point that has to be considered at this stage is, as to whether the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company? Several documents are produced, for the opposite parties and in pursuance of the claim of the complainant the opposite party wrote a letter to the complainant dated 26.02.2009 stating that, the documents mentioned therein are required for processing the claim. The said letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant returned undelivered with postal endorsement that, the addressee left long back without instructions, where about not known hence, return to the sender. The letter referred to above was sent to the address of the complainant shown in the cause title of the present complaint. Hence, from these documents, it is clear that, the opposite party Insurance Company not repudiated the claim of the complainant, but for want of documents, did not process the claim. Also, it is relevant to note that, after the complainant sent legal notice, reply has been given by the opposite party Insurance Company dated 15.10.2009, stating that, a letter was sent through registered post, which has been returned with remarks addressee not found and hence, the claim stood closed in the books and hence, could not bee reopened and under the circumstances, there is no delay or deficiency on the part of the opposite party Insurance Company.<br /> <br /> 10. With reference to the terms and conditions of the policy, learned advocate for the opposite parties submitted that, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Considering this condition in the policy, in view of the fact that, the claim was submitted by the complainant after more than two years and through particular letter the opposite party Insurance Company called upon the complainant to furnish the documents to process the claim, the said letter which was sent to correct address of the complainant returned undelivered with postal endorsement that the addressee left and hence, at the out set, it is to be said that, there is no repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party Insurance Company. Relevant documents particularly in view of the delay and other circumstances, are absolutely necessary for the opposite party Insurance Company to process the claim. In the absence of said documents and investigating into the matter, question of allowing or disallowing of claim either by this Forum or by the opposite party Insurance Company, will not arise. Under these circumstances, in the interest of parties, particularly the complainant, we are of the opinion that, let the complainant furnish the required documents to the opposite party Insurance Company, enabling it to process the claim and to consider the same in accordance with law. Also, we would like to make an observation that, though the opposite party has written that, since the complainant did not furnish the documents, the claim stand closed in the books, in its discretion, the claim can be re-opened and may be considered in the interest of justice. With these observations, at this stage our finding on the point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed with a direction to the complainant to submit all the relevant and necessary documents to the opposite party Insurance Company as per the letter dated 26.02.2009 to process the claim and that the opposite party Insurance Company to reopen the claim and consider the claim of the complainant in accordance with law.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 17th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />