PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties as it did not approve the insurance claim of the Complainant in respect of a damaged motor vehicle in a motor accident.
2) The facts of the case as stated by the Complainant that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti Zen Car having Reg.No.MH-03-S-8291 on 16/02/04. The Complainant was having Motor Insurance Policy No.123100/31/2009/14958 valid from 13/02/09 to 12/02/10 obtained from the Opposite Party. As per this policy the IDV, i.e. Insured Declared Value is Rs.1,80,000/-.
3) During the validity of the above policy on 11/11/09 the said vehicle met with an accident on Mumbai-Pune Express Highway near Kamshet Tunnel. Information regarding the accident was given to Opposite Party office at Pune. Pune branch office of the Opposite Party arranged a site survey on 12/11/09. A detailed report was sent to Thane office of the Opposite Party.
4) The vehicle was then transported to garage at Mumbai on 13/11/09 in a tempo. The expenditure incurred in this respect was approximately Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter the Complainant submitted the claim to the Opposite Party on 17/11/09. Then the Opposite Party arranged for detailed survey by its authorized surveyor.
5) The authorized garage owner gave a quotation of Rs.2,40,000/- for repairing the vehicle which met with an accident.
6) The Complainant has further stated that on 06/01/2010, the representative Mr.Pradeep told the Complainant over phone that the company has come to conclusion and has put up two alternatives vis a vis –
a) The cost for total loss of the vehicle = upto Rs.60,000/-
b) The Complainant may get the vehicle repaired and the Opposite Party will pay the repairing charges as per company’s
rule, which works out to be Rs.70,000/- to 75,000/-.
7) The Complainant further stated that the Insurd’s declared value, i.e. the cost of the vehicle after completion of five years is Rs.1,80,000/-. The Complainant has stated that Exh.‘F’ is attached to the complaint. We thoroughly checked the papers attached to the complaint but Exh.‘F’ is not attached to the papers.
8) The Complainant has further averred that, the Opposite Party offered to pay less amount towards the claim. This is the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. it is also submitted by the Complainant that, it is not economically as well as technically feasible to go for repairs of such vehicle which was bodily damaged in an accident. In fact it is not recommended to use such vehicle for daily use in future.
9) The Complainant has further stated that she sent a notice to the Opposite Party through her advocate calling upon the Opposite Party to settle the claim considering the IDV and other expenditure (such as, parking charges, transportation charges, loading unloading charges, etc. but the Opposite Party failed to respond to the claim and the notice. Thus the Complainant has stated that she is entitled to get IDV amount of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest from the date of the claim + parking charges, transportation charges & loading unloading charges, and compensation for mental agony etc., cost of the compliant.
10) The Complainant has prayed that the premium amount paid by her for the year 2010-2011 be repaid her.
The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents to her complaint –
a)Certificate of registration of vehicle MH-03-S-8291.
b)Invoice stating price of the vehicle.
c)Insurance Policy.
d)Letter dtd.05/04/2010 of the Complainant to Opposite Party.
e)Courier receipt dtd.12/04/2010.
f)Letter dtd.13/11/09 of the Complainant to Octroy Officer.
g)Invoice of Rahul Crane Service dtd.13/11/09.
h)Transport bill 151, dtd.13/11/09.
i)Quotation of Shaji Automobiles dtd.17/11/09.
j)Courier receipt 115231 dtd.11/02/2010.
k)Letter dtd.10/02/2010 of the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
l)Cheque of Rs.5,002/- dtd.10/02/2010.
m)Statement of account of the Complainant of ICICI Bank.
n)Notice of Advocate dtd.06/02/2010.
o)Postal receipt dtd.06/02/2010.
11) The complaint was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party. Opposite Party appeared through its Ld.Advocate and submitted its written statement and affidavit of evidence wherein it is submitted by the Opposite Party that it appointed a surveyor in this matter on 13/11/09 and 07/12/09. The Surveyor assessed the loss/damage, caused to the insured vehicle and gave its reports to the Opposite Party.
12) The Opposite Party has further stated that the amount claimed by the Complainant as per the complaint is very high and vexatious and is not agreeable to the Opposite Party. It is averred by the Opposite Party that the survey report has recommended to treat the claim of the Complainant on cash loss basis for Rs.58,700/- subject to some condition. It also recommend the claim on repair basis for Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, the Opposite Party conveyed both the options to the Complainant vide letter dtd.11/06/2010. Before that the Complainant had filed this complaint on 24/05/2010.
13) The Opposite Party has finally stated that, there is no deficiency on its part and hence, the complaint be dismissed.
14) The Opposite Party has attached the xerox copies of survey reports of the surveyor and the letter dtd.11/06/2010 addressed to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.
15) The Complainant filed an affidavit of evidence and a written argument wherein the facts stated in the complaint are reiterated. There is no written argument of the Opposite Party on record. We heard the Ld.Advocates of both the parties and perused the documents submitted by both the parties and our findings are as follows –
16) The Complainant had obtained an insurance policy in respect of Maruti Zen motor vehicle for the year 2009-2010. During the validity of this insurance policy the insured vehicle No.HM-03-S-8291 met with an accident and got damaged on 11/11/09 on Mumbai-Pune Express Highway near Kamshet Tunnel. The information regarding the accident and the damage caused to the insured vehicle was given to the Opposite Party. Opposite Party appointed the surveyor to assess the loss and recommended two options to settle the claim. 1st option was given on cash basis for Rs.58,700/- and 2nd option was given on repair basis for Rs.75,000/-.
17) We carefully scrutinized the surveyor’s report. The surveyor has recommend 4 options altogether. The surveyor has stated that “since estimated loss exceeds IDV, of vehicle, insured’s own damaged claim could be treated on following methods. This clearly indicates that the estimated cost of the repairs of the insured vehicle was more than the Insured Declared Value which is Rs.1,80,000/-. The Complainant has also produced the quotation from Shaji Automobiles for the repair of the damaged vehicle. This quotation amounts to Rs.2,40,000/- which exceeds the I.D.V. of the damaged vehicle. The averment of the surveyor’s report and the circumstances shows that the insured vehicle was damaged in an accident and its repair charges exceed the I.D.V. of the vehicle mentioned in the insurance policy. As the insurance policy has covered the loss caused to the vehicle and it’s repairing charges exceed the Insured Declared Value i.e. Rs.1,80,000/- the insured (Complainant) is entitled for the I.D.V. (Rs.1,80,000/-) of the damaged insured vehicle motor car No.MH-03-S-8291. However, instead of settling the claim as per the insurance policy, the Opposite Party neither settled the claim nor repudiated the claim, only offered two options which are less than the insured declared value covered under the policy. Therefore, this is the deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
18) However, the Complainant has claimed the transportation and parking charges incurred by her in this respect. These charges can not be reimbursed under the insurance policy.
19) The Complainant also has prayed for the reimbursement of the premium of Rs.5002/- for the year 2010-2011 voluntarily paid by her for insuring the said vehicle. In this connection the Complainant has not stated anything whether the Opposite Party has issued the insurance certificate for the period 13/02/2010 to 12/02/2011. Therefore, order for reimbursement of this amount cannot be made and this prayer of the Complainant cannot be acceded to.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we think just and proper that the Complainant is entitled to the I.D.V. of the damaged vehicle alongwith 9 % interest p.a. and cost of this complaint. Hence, we pass the order as follows –
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.177/2010 is partly allowed.
ii. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs. One Lac Eighty Thousand Only) to the Complainant
alongwith 9 % interest p.a. from 07/12/2009 (date of surveyor’s report) till the payment.
iii. Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards cost of this
complaint.
iv. Opposite Party is directed to collect the salvage of the damaged vehicle i.e. Motor Car No.MH-03-S-8291.
v Opposite Party is directed to comply with the above order within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
vi Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
