THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 396/2013

      Dated this the 20 th day of June 2017

                     (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                         :  President)

                          Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                          : Member

                          Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB               : Member

​

                                                                                         ORDER

Present: Beena Joseph, Member:

            The above petition was filed on 09.09.2013. The crux of the complainant is that complainant had taken an Insurance Policy from Shriram General Insurance Company, while obtaining finance from Shriram Transport Finance Company to the Vehicle Number KL 11 AF  0690.  The above vehicle met with an accident on 18.02.2013 which intimated to the opposite party on next day itself, but there was no response from the Shriram Insurance Company regarding the claim.  When complainant informed about the claim opposite party raised some technical problem that, the survey report and final bill did not match,  cost of parts are charged from original bill.  So petitioner contacted the officials they offered the errors will be cleared within one week.  Thereafter opposite party realized that the chassis number and Engine number printed in the policy are incorrect they demanded back insurance policy.  The old insurance policy was misplaced  from the complainant so he obtained copy and produced before the opposite party.  Even after there was no response from opposite parties.  At last opposite partySanctioned Rs.33000/- and cut off Rs.2000/- from t he sanctioned amount.  The actual bill amount of the work was Rs.55000/- out of this opposite party provided only Rs.31000/-. So complainant is financially suffered a lot, the approach and attitude of  opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and they fraudulently misrepresented the petitioner.  Hence the petitioner claims Rs.50,000/- as compensation with 18% interest.  Rs.45000/- for compensation for mental agony and cost of the petition.

            In this matter notice issued to both parties. 1st opposite party filed version stating the following contentions.  There was no cause of action against 1st opposite party.  Complainant had obtained a vehicle loan from 1st opposite party for purchasing the vehicle. 1stopposite party is unaware about vehicle Insurance and its accident.  No number is  mention the petition.  So 1st opposite party could not mention anything regarding the allegations.  There was no negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of 1st opposite party.  There is no contract between 1st opposite party and  the complainant hence 1st opposite party is not liable to compensate the petitioner.  This forum has no jurisdiction to consider the matter because complainant has entered into a hypothecation agreement with 1st opposite party.  So there is only a debtor, creditor relation was existing between the parties.  So the transaction is a commercial one.  So Forum has no jurisdiction.  There is no mental agony or pain as alleged by the complainant.  So the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 2nd opposite party filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable.  Complainant is not a consumer as per the act.  Complainant is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties by impleading 2nd opposite party.  2nd opposite party admits that vehicle No.KL11-AF 0690 pickup was insured with 2nd opposite party from 09.04.12 to 08.04.13.  Complainant had preferred own damage claim on 23.02.13 due to an accident occurred to the vehicle by skidding and hit with  a wall on reception of claim 2nd opposite party appointed Surveyor and surveyor inspected the above vehicle and submitted a report.  He assessed an amount of Rs.33465/-subject to terms and conditions of policy and bills.  So 2nd opposite party approved the report and sanctioned Rs.31650/- after deducting the excess clause, Salvage and no claim bonus/IMT to 1st opposite party.  A cheque issued to the account of complainant on 27.09.13.  There was no delay or laches occurred on the part of 2nd opposite party in processing the claim, even though the Engine number and chassis number of insured vehicle are different.  The opposite party disputes the claim of financial loss, mental agony, misrepresentation and unfair trade practice of opposite parties.  And 2nd opposite party states that the petitioner is not entitled to any amount towards mental agony and compensation.  Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed with compensation cost to the opposite party.

Points to be considered.

Is there any deficiency in processing the claim?
Whether there is any deficiency of service or illegal trade practice adopted by opposite party?
If Yes what are the reliefs?

     In this matter complainant examined as PW1, Ext.A1 to A6 marked on his side.  Ext.A1 is the RC copy of Vehicle No.KL11-AE9681 owned by the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the Insurance Policy of vehicle number KL-11 AF 0690.Ext.A3 is the driving licence Ext.A4 is the accident claim intimation of vehicle No.KL11 AF 0690, ext.A5 is the bill from ACE Motors, Ext.A6 is the bills from ACE Motors.

           Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence but marked B1 to B5 documents.  Ext.B1 is the policy copy of vehicle Number KL 11 AF- 0690(A2) Ext.B2 is the claim form dated 23.02.2013.Ext.B3 is the Surveyor report, Ext.B4 is the claim approval sheet, Ext.B5 claim status report.

           In this matter complainant has filed an affidavit stating that he is not seeking any relief against 1st opposite party.  Now the claim remains against 2nd opposite party alone.

Point No.1 & 2:- 2nd opposite party has contended that the petitioner has no privilege as Consumer as defined in the Act. So the petition is not maintainable, but while we are going through the evidence and documents, it is seen that the 2nd opposite party admitted the existence of the policy with respect to the vehicle No.KL 11 AF 0690.  The accident occurred to the above vehicle was on 18.02.2013 is also seen admitted by 2nd opposite party.  In such a situation the contentions took by the 2nd opposite party that, complainant is not a consumer and it is not maintainable etc has no relevance at all.

           The 2nd opposite party had admitted the policy and the accident occurred to the vehicle.  In this context it is only to be decided whether there is delay occurred in disbursing the claim or not.  The above accident was occurred on 18.02.2013 which admitted by both sides and claim was lodged on 23.02.13 as per Ext.B2.  The surveyor was deputed and he has submitted report to the 2nd opposite party Company on 27.02.13 as per Ext.B3.  Later the above survey report was accepted by the Company on 26.09.13 as per Ext.B4 and they sanctioned only Rs.31650/- after deducting no claim bonus, salvage IMT etc.  This clearly shows that there was a gap of 7 months in processing the claim and sanctioning the same.  The record shows that the surveyor had filed report in time but 2nd opposite party took 7 months time to act on the report of the surveyor. 2nd opposite party has not properly explained the reason why such delay caused in processing the claim.  Some where 2nd opposite party stated that, there was difference in Engine number and Chassis number in the policy certificate of the vehicle.  The policy certificate is issuing by the insurance company, so it is their bounden duty to enter proper engine number and chassis number as per the registration certificate of the vehicle, this is an official duty of the 2nd opposite party wherein complainant has no access at all.  Hence the complainant cannot be blamed or penalized for the mistakes committed by the 2nd opposite party.  So it is clear that, there was an unexplained delay of 7 months on the part of 2nd opposite party in processing the claim.  This amounts to unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party.  In this matter petitioner preferred complaint on 07.09.2013 before this Forum.  On reception of notice from this forum 2nd opposite party had paid the claim amount sanctioned by the surveyor.  This also establishes that 2nd opposite party waited till the receipt of notice from this forum.  So it can be presumed that the case of the complainant is genuine, even then he has not adduced any evidence or documents regarding the loss sustained by him.  In the result the above petition is allowed.

           Therefore we direct the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand only) as compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

                                                Dated this 20^th  day of June 2017.

                                                      Date of filing: 09.09.2013.

SD/-MEMBER                                       SD/- PRESIDENT                        SD/- MEMBER

                                                                   APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Certificate of Registration  of vehicle No.KL-11 AE-9681 (copy)

A2.Insurance policy of vehicle Number KL-11 AF 0690.

A3.The driving licence

A4. The accident claim intimation of vehicle No.Kl-11 AF 0690.

A5.Bill from ACE Motors.

A6. The bill from ACE Motors.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1. Policy copy of vehicle No.KL-11 AF 0690

B2.Claim Form dtd.23.02.2013

B3. The Surveyor report

B4.The claim approval sheet.

B5.Claim status report.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.Sreejith (Partner of the complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None

                                                                                                                                   Sd/-President

//True copy//

                                                                   (Forwarded/By Order)

                                                           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT