CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 387/2009
Saturday, the 23rd day of June , 2012.
Petitioner : Jessy Emmanuel Podipara,
Podipara House,
Muttambalam P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. V.R Raveendran)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd., 570, Rectifier House,
Naigaum Cross Road,
Wadala (W)
Mumbai – 400 031.
(By Adv. Benoy Jose Mathew)
2) The MaNnager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Vishnu Bldg.,
K.P Vallon Road,
Kadavanthara.
(By Adv. Benoy Jose Mathew)
3) The General Motors India (P)
Ltd., Halol, Vadodara, Gujarat.
(By Adv. Boby John)
4) The Manager,
Geeyem Motors (P) Ltd.,
11/336, NH 47 Bye-pass,
Nettoor P.O, Cochin.
(By Adv. Shafik M. Abdulkhadir.)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 23..12..2009 is as follows.
Petitioner insured his vehicle with 1st opposite party with vide policy No. 2201772311188854. During the policy period on 21..08..2008. Vehicle
-2-
met with an accident and immediately the vehicle was entrusted to the 4th opposite party reporting the accident to 3rd opposite party. Condition of the vehicle before the accident is beyond repair. Office of 3rd opposite party discussed the matter in detailed with petitioner and demanded Rs. 5,000/- as expenses for transporting the vehicle. All the relevant papers in original such as RC book, driving licence, insurance policy, tax paid token were handed over to the service centre of the 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party under took to settle claim and to deliver the vehicle on or before 20..9..2008. 4th opposite party informed the petitioner on 20..10..2009 that first opposite party advised for repair of the car and direct to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- towards other expenses for which insurance liability was only 50%. Aggrieved by the said demand, petitioner object the same and 4th opposite party suddenly reduced the same and demanded to pay Rs. 60,000/-. Petitioner requested for details of estimate and other communication done by 4th opposite party with first opposite party but the demands were reduced by 4th opposite party. Petitioner sent a letter dtd: 24..10..2008 to 4th opposite party requesting copies of details referred above but the same was not served till date. According to petitioner due to the act of deficiency committed by opposite parties claim of the petitioner is not so far settled. Hence petition.
First and second opposite party filed joint version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party 1 and 2 admitted the policy opposite party 1 and 2 has not authorized 3rd opposite to give any assurance to the petitioner on behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite party. Petitioner can not demand for total loss for the insured car as of right. The surveyor was
-3-
deputed by second opposite party to assess the damage submitted a report. According to opposite party 1 and 2 claim will be settled on the basis of IRDA norms. Surveyor deputed by second opposite party assessed the loss for Rs. 3,53,650.38. For a settlement on total basis the cost of damage exceeds 71 percent of the IDV. According to opposite party one and two they never assured to relief to settle the claim for total loss. On completion of the survey petitioner has to commence the repair work of the vehicle and on completion of the work and submit full satisfaction voucher. The second opposite party will release the amount arrived. According to second opposite party delay in settling the claim is due to delay in getting vehicle repaired . So, opposite party prays for dismissal of petition with their costs.
3rd opposite party filed separate version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to 3rd opposite party fora has no territorial jurisdiction. 3rd opposite party do not have any branch office in Kottayam. Relationship between the 3rd and 4th opposite party is only principal to principal basis. According to 3rd opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of petition.
4th opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to 3rd opposite party responsibility of 3rd opposite party is limited to extent of sale and after sale service. 3rd opposite party has not entered in to any agreement to settled the claim or to deliver the vehicle on 20..9..2008. The delay in repair was caused because the petitioner has not neither remitte the required amount for repair and petitioner keep the vehicle in the premises of the opposite party. On 21..10..2008 4th opposite
-4-
party sent a registered letter to the petitioner requesting for settlement and indicating the floor rent for keeping the vehicle. According to 4th opposite party petitioner has to settle her claim with first opposite party and 4th opposite party has no role in the dispute. So they pray for rejection of the complaint.
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A9 documents on the part of the petitioner and C1 report of surveyor and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
The crux of petitioner is that claim of the petitioner for the damage caused to his vehicle with first opposite party is not processed and that amounts to deficiency in service. According to opposite party 1 and 2 they deputed a surveyor and the surveyor assessed damage in tune of Rs. 3,53,650/-. According to 2nd opposite party petitioner had entrusted the vehicle for repair at her on option with 4th opposite party. Second opposite party is liable to indemnify the insured as per the terms of insurance contract and IRDA directions. . Petitioner was insisting to total loss on a mistaken belief that the cost of repair exceeds 75% of the IDV and he is entitled for total loss. As per Ext. C1 survey report the damage for the repair cost of the vehicle is at Rs. 445354/-. Counsel for the opposite party 1 and 2 vehumently and strongly argued that the assessment made in C1 report is not proper because if the assessment is made on the date of accident it would have been much below and would not have exceeds. 75% of the IDV of the vehicle. In our view the said contention raised by learned counsel for opposite party 1 and 2 is of much importance. Considering Ext. C1 and B1 report and the rivals
-5-
contention of the both sides. Fora is of the view that the net repairing cost for the damaged vehicle come to Rs. 4,30,000/-. Definitely without saying what had happened caused much mental agony loss and sufferings to the petitioner. So, petitioner is entitled for compensation. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is allowed. In the result opposite party one and two are directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- as net repairing cost for the damaged vehicle. Opposite party one and two are ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation Rs. 5,000/- is ordered litigation cost that also includes the expenses meted by the petitioner for appointing a surveyor. So, we pass an award for Rs. 4,45,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization. Order shall be complied with within one month. On compliance of the order opposite party 1 and 2 is liberty to remove the reck from the premises the 4th opposite party that also should be within 2 months. If reck is not removed as ordered opposite party one and two shall pay demurrage charges of Rs. 150/- per day to 4th opposite party. On deposited the amount petition is allowed to withdraw the entire amount.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of June, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
-6-
APPENDIX
Documents of the Petitioner
Ext. A1: Registration Certificate of the Car bearing registration No. KL-5/Y
6261.
Ext. A2: Tax paid token vide TL.No.5/9387/2008 Dtd: 1..4..2008 for the vehicle
KL-5/Y/6261 up to 31..3..2023.
Ext. A3: The insurance policy bearing No 2201772311188854 with the 1st
opposite party valid from 26..3..2008 to 25..3..2009 for the vehicle
bearing /registration N. KL-5/Y 6261
Ext. A4: Driving Licence (true photostat copy) bearing No. K 40/82 fo George
Emmanuel Podipara.
Ext. A5: Office copy of the letter Dtd: 24..10..2008
Ext. A6: Office copy of the letter dtd: 2..3..2009
Ext. A7: Copy of the e-mail Dtd: 24..4..2009 sent by Balamurali
Ext. A8: Office copy of the letter dtd: 8..5..2009
Ext. A9: Stamped vouchers/receipts 80 in numbers.
Documents for the Opposite party:
Ext. B1: Survey report filed by Mr. Balamurali.
Ext. B2: Policy certificate.
C 1: Survey report filed by P.A Santhosh.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
