O R D E R
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act.
2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows: The complainant is the registered owner of a Honda Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-26-D-7492/2013. The first opposite party is the Branch Manager of Reliance General Insurance Company and the 2nd opposite party is Deputy Manager of first opposite party’s Company. The 1st opposite party is functioning as per the direction of 2nd opposite party. The complainant stated that, his above said vehicle is insured with 1st opposite party for the year 30/05/2014 – 29/05/2015. At the time of registering the vehicle with 1st opposite party as per the direction of the said opposite party the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle is decided as Rs.36,850/-. According to him, if the vehicle is became useless as a result of any accident the opposite party is ought to pay the above said Rs.36,850/-to the complainant. On 03.01.2015, while the complainant was riding this vehicle through Chandanappally – Nedumonkavu Road at Angadikkal Vadakku- Koippattu Junction a Scorpio car bearing register No. KL-5/S2441 hit the vehicle and the motor bike of the complainant caused heavy damages and the complainant also sustained serious injury from this incident and he was admitted in the Muthoot Medical Centre, Pathanamthitta and treated up to 31.01.2015. The complainant informed the damages of the motor bike to the opposite parties and in pursuance of the direction of the opposite parties he entrusted this vehicle to the authorized service centre which is situating at Pathanamthitta named Muthoot Honda. On 28.01.2015 the complainant filed claim form, copy of FIR, copy of driving license and the copy of the registration certificate to the opposite parties. On 29.01.2015 the opposite parties issued a notice stating that, there was a delay of 25 days for the claim and complainant has to reply a show cause of the alleged delay and subject to the right of repudiation of the claim. The opposite parties entrusted a Surveyor for assessing the loss caused to the vehicle in question. In pursuance of this letter on 09.02.2015 the complainant gave a reply to the opposite parties along with discharge certificate from the hospital concern. The complainant again stated that, the alleged Surveyor of the opposite parties has not given any notice before ascertaining the damage of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the approach of the opposite parties the complainant filed an application before the insurance Surveyor and loss assessor by Johnson Mathew for ascertaining the damages of this vehicle. On 16.03.2015 at about 4 pm the above said Johnson Mathew arrived at the authorized service center and this fact inform to the opposite parties also. Even though, the opposite parties has known about the information they purposefully did not arrive the above said service center. So far the opposite parties has not appoint any Surveyor to ascertain the damages of the vehicle. On 16.03.2015 itself the said Johnson Mathew inspected the said vehicle and ascertains the damages of the vehicle. As per his report he calculated a loss of Rs.36,658.15 paise as a damage of the vehicle and ascertains the damages of the engine of the vehicle, the vehicle has to be dismantle. The complainant again contented that, after obtaining said report on 08.05.2015 the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice to the complainant for the payment of the market value of the vehicle Rs. 36,850/-, Survey fees Rs. 2,708/-, Physical and mental difficulties Rs.25,000/- and fee of the advocate notice fees Rs.1,000/- from the opposite parties. The cause of action of the complaint is arised within the jurisdiction of the court and the act of the opposite parties are clear violation of the right of the complainant as a consumer. Hence this complaint for realizing for an amount of Rs.65,558/- and 12% interest from the opposite parties.
3. The complainant filed the above complaint before this Forum and after perusing the complaint and other records this Forum entertain the complaint and decided to issue notice to the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties receive the notice but they failed to appear before the Forum on date of posting of this case. At last on 23.07.2015, both the opposite parties are declared exparte and the case posted for exparte evidence. This Forum examined the complainant on 25.09.2015 and marked Ext. A1 to A17 and the case posted for hearing on 12.10.2015. On that date opposite parties 1 and 2 filed petition to set aside exparte order passed by the Forum and this Forum heard his petition as I.A 102/2015 and dismissed this petition vide separate order. .
4. On the basis of the complaint and the record produced we framed the following issues in this case.
- Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
- If it is maintainable the complaint is succeed to prove the deficiency in service of the opposite parties as alleged?
- Regarding the relief and costs?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he is examined as PW1 and marked Ext. A1 to A17. The proof affidavit of the complainant is more or less as per the tune of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of R.C book, Ext.A2 is the photocopy of Insurance Policy, Ext.A3 is the photocopy of driving license, Ext.A4 is the photocopy of repudiation letter dated 29.01.2015 sent the opposite party to the complainant, Ext.A5 is the reply letter dated 09.02.2015, Ext.A6 series are the postal receipts, Ext.A7 series are the acknowledgment card, Ext.A8 is the request letter dated 21.02.2015, Ext.A9 is the letter dated 04.03.2015 informing date of survey, Ext.A10 is the intimation letter dated 09.03.2015, Ext.A11 series are the postal receipts dated 09.03.2015, Ext.A12 series are the acknowledgment cards dated 09.03.2015, Ext.A13 is the survey report, Ext.14 is the Advocate notice dated 08.05.2015, Ext. A15 series are the postal receipts dated 08.05.2015, Ext.A16 series are the acknowledgement cards dated 11.05.2015 and Ext.A17 is the copy of FIR dated 05.01.2015. After closing all the evidence we heard the counsel who is appearing for the complainant’s case.
6. Point Nos.1 to 3:- For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 to 3 together. The evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 is unchallenged in this case since the opposite parties are declared as exparte. As per the deposition of PW1 in chief he categorically stated that, he is the registered owner of the Honda Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-26-D-7492 and the vehicle is insured to opposite parties insurance company for an IDV of Rs.36,850/-. It is clear that, the complainant is the registered owner of the above said vehicle and the opposite parties are provided insurance coverage to the complainant’s vehicle. Hence point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
7. PW1 narrated that, on 03.01.2015 while PW1 riding the vehicle, the said vehicle met with an accident at Angadikkal Vadakku Koippattu Junction with a Scorpio car bearing register No. KL-5/S2441 and PW1 sustain serious injury. Apart from it the vehicle in question is also damaged as a result of this accident and it is also evident that, one Johnson Mathew ascertained the damage of the vehicle on 16.03.2015 after duly served notice to the opposite parties. He again deposed that, he filed all the necessary documents along with the claim application to the opposite parties but they failed to consider the claim of the complainant. It is also pertinent to see that, as per Ext.A4 dated 29.01.2015 the opposite parties issued a notice and inform that, the opposite parties are going to appoint a Surveyor for ascertaining the loss of the vehicle. In Ext.A4 it is stated 'However, without prejudicing our rights to repudiate the claim, we have appointed Surveyor / Investigator to assess the loss. In view of above violation, no cashless facility can be extended’. Even though, this Ext.A4 is issued as stated above the opposite party is not appointed any Surveyor as their own to ascertain the damage of the vehicle in question. The complainant has a clear case to the effect that, he himself taken coercive steps to entrust an
expert person to ascertain the damages of the vehicle and more over the complainant inform the date, time and place of the arrival of the said person for ascertaining the damage of the said vehicle. As per Ext.A5 it is seen that, the complainant send a legal notice to the opposite party regarding the damage sustained by this vehicle and stated the reason for the delay from applying for the insurance amount. He again stated that, he was under treatment due to the injury sustained at the time of incident and that was the reason for delay for filing the claim form. Ext.A6 series are the postal receipts and Ext.A7 series are the acknowledgement cards of the said notice. Ext.A8, A9 and A10 are conclusive evidence of entrustment of surveyor Johnson Mathew for assessing the loss and damages sustained the vehicle, notice of the date, place and time of the assessment of the vehicle to both the parties ect. Ext.A17 is the copy of the F.I.R prepared by the Asst. Sub Inspector, Kodumon Police Station in favour of the complainant. Through Ext.17, it reveals that police has registered a case regarding the accident of the said vehicle hit a Scorpio car and the complainant sustained serious injuries and the motor bike also caused certain damages. The above said Johnson Mathew who issued notice to the complainant showing the date, time and place of inspection of the vehicle through Ext.A9. Ext.A10 is the copy of the information of the date, time and place of the inspection of the vehicle to the opposite parties and the above said intimation letter is seen accepted by the opposite parties as per Ext.A11 and A12. But it is also evident to see that, even though the opposite parties accepted the notice they are not even present at the time of the above said inspection. Anyway the said Surveyor calculated an amount of Rs. 36,558.15/- as the loss of the value of the vehicle and the said report is marked as Ext.A13. In order to substantiate the loss sustained by the complainant with regard to the said vehicle he produced almost all the record before this Forum. In this case the relevancy of the exhibit marked on the side of complainant has not been challenged. Therefore, we have to rely the evidence of the exhibits marked along with the chief examination of the complainant as PW1.
8. At the time of hearing the learned counsel appearing for the complainant produced a copy of a journal connected with Insured Declared Value (IDV) written by Policy Bezaar, Views 11852, published 2nd June 2015. It is stated that, Insured Declared Value is the maximum Sum Assured fixed by the insurer which is provided on theft or total loss of vehicle. Basically, IDV is the current market value of the vehicle. If the vehicle suffers total loss, IDV is the compensation that the insurer will provide to the policyholder.
IDV is calculated as manufacturer’s listed selling price minus depreciation. The registration and insurance cost are excluded from IDV. The IDV of the accessories which are not factory fitted, are calculated separately at extra cost if insurance is required for them. The depreciation schedule is as follows:
Age of Vehicle % Depreciation for
adjusting IDV
Not exceeding 6 months : 5%
Exceeding 6 months but not exceeding 1 year : 15%
Exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 2 years : 20%
Exceeding 2 year but not exceeding 3 years : 30%
Exceeding 3 year but not exceeding 4 years : 40%
Exceeding 4 year but not exceeding 5 years : 50%
The IDV of vehicles aged over 5 years is calculated by mutual agreement between insurer and the insured. Instead of depreciation, IDV of old cars is arrived at by assessment of vehicle’s condition done by surveyors, car dealers etc. IDV = (Manufacturer’s listed selling price- depreciation) + (Accessories that are not included in listed selling price – depreciation) and excludes registration and insurance costs.
Why is IDV important?
As explained, IDV is the amount that you will get in case your vehicle is stolen or suffers total loss. It is highly recommended to get IDV which is near the cost of market value of car. Insurers provide with range of 5% to 10% to decrease IDV which could be chosen by customer. Less IDV would attract less premium. Any way we are not in a position to arrive a conclusion on the basis of the above said journal but in order to calculate the insured value of the vehicle the depreciation amount has to be deducted. At the time of taking an insurance policy usually an owner of the vehicle reduced the depreciation value of the vehicle and calculates the sum assured for the vehicle and paying the premium for the sum assured. As per Ext.A2 it is seen that, the IDV value is for Rs.36,850/- and the insured remitting premium for the said amount. The period of insurance is from 30th May 2014 to 29th May 2015.
9. When we peruse the evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 it is seen that, though the complainant has taken coercive steps to get the claim amount from the opposite parties they are reluctant to pay the insurance amount as claimed by the complainant. The Ext.A4 notice dated 29.01.2015 can be seen as a reply notice without stating any valid ground for the repudiation. The explanation of the opposite parties through Ext.A4 is not a sufficient explanation for repudiating a genuine claim of a genuine consumer. Therefore, complaint of the complainant is to be allowed.
10. When we consider the evidence adduced by the complainant it is clear that, the vehicle is damaged due to an accident and it is proved as per Ext.A17. It is clear that motor bike is covered with an insurance policy with 1st opposite party. Even though the complainant filed an application form for insurance claim, it is repudiated by Ext.A4. As discussed above the attitude of the opposite parties for repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant is not at all a legal stand taken on their part and it is against the provisions of insurance law and natural justice. As per the evidence adduced by the complainant in this case, we are not in a position to accept Ext.A4 repudiation letter against the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severely committed deficiency in service against the complainant. Hence both of the opposite parties are answerable and liable to pay the claim amount in respect of this petition and this complaint can be allowable. In the light of the above finding Point No.2 and Point No.3 are also find in favour of the complainant.
11. In the result we pass the following orders:
- Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.36,850/-(Rupees Thirty six
Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty only) with 10% interest to the complainant as the insurance amount of the complainant’s vehicle from the date of this order.
- The opposite party directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) with 10% interest as compensation to the complainant till its realization from the date of this order onwards.
- The complainant is also allowed to realize a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) from opposite parties with 10% of interest till its realization from the date of the order onwards.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2015.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Krishnakumar. P
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of R.C book.
A2 : Photocopy of Insurance Policy.
A3 : Photocopy of driving license.
A4 : Photocopy of repudiation letter dated 29.01.2015 sent the opposite party
to the complainant.
A5 : Photocopy of reply letter dated 09.02.2015.
A6 series : Photocopy of Postal receipts.
A7series : Photocopy of Acknowledgment cards.
A8 : Photocopy of letter dated 21.02.2015 sent by the complainant
to the insurance surveyor.
A9 : Photocopy of letter dated 04.03.2015 informing date of survey
to assess loss and damages.
A10 : Photocopy of letter dated 09.03.2015 sent by the complainant
to the 2nd opposite party.
A11 series : Photocopy of Postal receipts.
A12 series : Photocopy of Postal acknowledgment cards.
A13 : Photocopy of Survey report.
A14 : Photocopy of Advocate notice dated 08.05.2015 sent by the complainant
to opposite parties.
A15 series : Photocopy of Postal receipts.
A16 series : Photocopy of Postal acknowledgement cards
A17 : Photocopy of FIR dated 05.01.2015.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) P. Krishnakumar, Krishna Vilas, Angadickal North,
Kaippattoor, Pathanamthitta.
(2) The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Deputy Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Vishnu Building, K.P Vallon Road,
Kadavanthra, Cochin.
(4) The Stock File.
