BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No.241/2002 Filed on11/06/2002
Dated: 30..06..2009 Complainant: K. Muraleedharan Nair, Kavumpurathu Veedu, Aniyoor, Chempazhanthy-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Raveendran Nair)
Opposite party: Senior Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Ramakrishna Building, Near Aristo Junction, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 13..02..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER: Facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant is the owner of Motor vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-01-U 1001. He has insured the vehicle with the opposite party's company and the insurance policy No. issued to the complainant by the opposite party is 6728. The policy covers all risks and damage to the vehicle insured. The vehicle while it was in transit by road from Madurai to Kanyakumari, the front wind screen of the vehicle broke. Complainant states that there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver, who is an experienced driver and the damage was caused to the vehicle not due to any reason attributable to the driver. Soon after the incident the complainant preferred a claim on 24/11/2001 before the opposite party. But the claim of the complainant was rejected by the opposite party on flimsy and intenable grounds and denying their liability to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the illegal stand taken by the opposite party, the complainant issued a lawyer's notice to the opposite party claiming a compensation amounting to Rs.25,800/-. The opposite party received the notice, but not turned up to settle the claim. Hence this complaint.
2. The Opposite party – Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed version contending the claim of the complainant. The opposite party has no objection regarding the existence of policy and the opposite party stated that the policy has been issued subject to the terms, conditions and endorsement as made out in the same. The complainant had on 23/11/2001 submitted a claim form intimating that on 22/11/2001 near at Thirunelveli while on running, the front glass of the bus was broken and no third party was responsible for the alleged damage along with the claim form, the complainant submitted an estimate prepared by his repairers. The opposite party on receipt of the aforesaid claim form had immediately deputed an independent surveyor to note and report as to the extent of loss and the cause for the same. The surveyor, after conducting a detailed assessment of the damage and on a discussion with the driver as well as the repairers of the vehicle, it was revealed that the alleged damage was occurred not due to any external means which fact is corroborated by the written statement given by the driver of the vehicle to the surveyor. The opposite party on perusing the survey report along with the connected records it was revealed that the cause of the alleged damage sustained to the front glass of the vehicle was not due to any external accidental means and had occurred while on running, which loss is outside the purview of the policy and therefore the opposite party after due application of mind and in good faith considering all the facts and circumstances had on 28/3/2002 issued a registered notice to the complainant informing their inability to consider the complainant's claim and repudiated the same with due reasons mentioned therein. The opposite party stated that they have repudiated the claim legally and there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in any manner.
3.In this case, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 5 documents. The documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. The opposite party has also filed affidavit and produced 12 documents. The documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D12. Nobody has been cross examined and no witness was examined.
4. Points that would arise for consideration are: Whether the repudiation made by the opposite party is legal and valid? Whether there is deficiency in service or negligence from the side of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?
5. Points (i) to (iii) : To support his claim the complainant has produced 5 documents. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the copy of policy certificate. From this document it is evident that at the time of the alleged incident the complainant's vehicle has a valid policy. We cannot see the terms and conditions of the policy. Ext.P2 is the copy of lawyer's notice issued to the opposite party on 27/4/2002 demanding Rs.25,800/- as compensation. Ext.P3 is the postal receipt of notice. Ext.P4 is the acknowledgment card signed by the opposite party. 6. To contend the claim of the complainant the opposite party produced 12 documents. The document marked as Ext.D1 is the copy of driving license and other details of the vehicle. In this case the opposite party has no objection regarding these details. Ext.D2 is the copy of Certificate of Registration etc.of the vehicle. Ext.D3 is the copy of the statement written by the driver of the complainant stating that the alleged damage was occurred not due to any external means and that was happened due to the air pressure inside the glass. Ext.D4 is the copy of application form for permit. Ext.D5 is the copy of statement for repairing of broken front glass of the vehicle of complainant issued by Jaitech Motor Works for Rs.26,800/- dated 23/11/2001. Ext.D6 is the copy of Surveyor's report dated 30/11/2001. As per the Surveyor's report the assessed damage is Rs. 16,692.50. In this document the Surveyor stated that he had obtained a statement from the insured vehicle's driver and in that letter the driver mentioned that the glass is broken not due to hitting by other external object. Hence the incident cannot be treated as an accidental damage. Ext.D7 is the copy of repudiation letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 28/3/2002. In this letter the opposite party stated the reason for repudiating the claim. The Surveyor stated that the glass is broken not due to hitting by any other external object, ie., it is not an accidental damage. As the glass broken by itself while on the move, hence they have no liability to entertain the claim. Ext.D8 is the copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party requesting to return the bills submitted by him before the opposite party dated 4/4/2002. Ext.D9 is the copy of Advocate's notice issued by the complainant. Ext.D10 is the copy of reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 29/5/2002. Ext.D11 is the copy of claim form submitted by the complainant before the opposite party on 23/11/2001. Ext.D12 is the copy of policy certificate. 7. From the documents and evidences produced by the complainant and opposite party in this case there is no dispute regarding the existence of policy and the occurance of the incident. But nobody has produced the terms and conditions of the policy both parties produced only the policy certificate. From that document we can seen that the policy is comprehensive policy. As per the policy certificate the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.7,340/- for own damage basis to the opposite party. We cannot see any exclusion clause in the policy certificate that any damage caused not due to any external accidental means, the insurance is not liable for that damage. The opposite party has not stated the reason as per which clause of the terms and conditions of the policy they denied the claim. Hence we are of the opinion that it is reasonable to allow the amount assessed by the surveyor for the damage. Hence in the interest of natural justice and also considering the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act we allow this complaint In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.16,192.50 with 9% annual interest from 28/3/2002 till the date of realization and the opposite party also shall pay Rs.1,500/- as costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, ad. MEMBER. O.P.No.241/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of certificate cum policy schedule of Regn.No.KL-01-U-2001 P2 : Copy of letter dated 27/4/2002 issued to the opp. party P3 : Postal receipt No.2101 P4 : Postal acknowledgment card dated 29/4/2002 P5 : Letter dated 28/3/2002 issued by opp. Party Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents: D1 : Copy of Driving license and driver badge D2 : Photocopy of certificate of Registration book pages 2 to 5. D3 : Copy of letter dated 23/11/01 issued to the opp. Party by the complainant. D4 : Copy of permit in respect of a contract carriage with permit No.P.Co.C9/3/T/2001 dt. 17/1/2001 issued by Secretary, RTA, Tvpm. D5 : Copy of quotation for repairing dated 23/11/01 for Rs.26,800/-. D6 : Copy of private and confidential Motor (final) Survey report dt. 30/11/01 D7 : Copy of letter dated 28/3/2002 issued by the opp. Party. D8 : Copy of letter dated 4/4/02 issued to the opp.party D9 : Copy of advocate notice dated 20/4/2002 issued to opp. Party D10 : Copy of reply notice dated 29/5/2002 issued to the complainant D11 : Copy of Motor Claim Form with period of Insurance dated 18/10/2002. PRESIDENT
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No.241/2002 Filed on11/06/2002
Dated: 30..06..2009 Complainant: K. Muraleedharan Nair, Kavumpurathu Veedu, Aniyoor, Chempazhanthy-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Raveendran Nair)
Opposite party: Senior Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Ramakrishna Building, Near Aristo Junction, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 13..02..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER: Facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant is the owner of Motor vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-01-U 1001. He has insured the vehicle with the opposite party's company and the insurance policy No. issued to the complainant by the opposite party is 6728. The policy covers all risks and damage to the vehicle insured. The vehicle while it was in transit by road from Madurai to Kanyakumari, the front wind screen of the vehicle broke. Complainant states that there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver, who is an experienced driver and the damage was caused to the vehicle not due to any reason attributable to the driver. Soon after the incident the complainant preferred a claim on 24/11/2001 before the opposite party. But the claim of the complainant was rejected by the opposite party on flimsy and intenable grounds and denying their liability to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the illegal stand taken by the opposite party, the complainant issued a lawyer's notice to the opposite party claiming a compensation amounting to Rs.25,800/-. The opposite party received the notice, but not turned up to settle the claim. Hence this complaint.
2. The Opposite party – Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed version contending the claim of the complainant. The opposite party has no objection regarding the existence of policy and the opposite party stated that the policy has been issued subject to the terms, conditions and endorsement as made out in the same. The complainant had on 23/11/2001 submitted a claim form intimating that on 22/11/2001 near at Thirunelveli while on running, the front glass of the bus was broken and no third party was responsible for the alleged damage along with the claim form, the complainant submitted an estimate prepared by his repairers. The opposite party on receipt of the aforesaid claim form had immediately deputed an independent surveyor to note and report as to the extent of loss and the cause for the same. The surveyor, after conducting a detailed assessment of the damage and on a discussion with the driver as well as the repairers of the vehicle, it was revealed that the alleged damage was occurred not due to any external means which fact is corroborated by the written statement given by the driver of the vehicle to the surveyor. The opposite party on perusing the survey report along with the connected records it was revealed that the cause of the alleged damage sustained to the front glass of the vehicle was not due to any external accidental means and had occurred while on running, which loss is outside the purview of the policy and therefore the opposite party after due application of mind and in good faith considering all the facts and circumstances had on 28/3/2002 issued a registered notice to the complainant informing their inability to consider the complainant's claim and repudiated the same with due reasons mentioned therein. The opposite party stated that they have repudiated the claim legally and there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in any manner.
3.In this case, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 5 documents. The documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. The opposite party has also filed affidavit and produced 12 documents. The documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D12. Nobody has been cross examined and no witness was examined.
4. Points that would arise for consideration are: Whether the repudiation made by the opposite party is legal and valid? Whether there is deficiency in service or negligence from the side of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?
5. Points (i) to (iii) : To support his claim the complainant has produced 5 documents. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the copy of policy certificate. From this document it is evident that at the time of the alleged incident the complainant's vehicle has a valid policy. We cannot see the terms and conditions of the policy. Ext.P2 is the copy of lawyer's notice issued to the opposite party on 27/4/2002 demanding Rs.25,800/- as compensation. Ext.P3 is the postal receipt of notice. Ext.P4 is the acknowledgment card signed by the opposite party. 6. To contend the claim of the complainant the opposite party produced 12 documents. The document marked as Ext.D1 is the copy of driving license and other details of the vehicle. In this case the opposite party has no objection regarding these details. Ext.D2 is the copy of Certificate of Registration etc.of the vehicle. Ext.D3 is the copy of the statement written by the driver of the complainant stating that the alleged damage was occurred not due to any external means and that was happened due to the air pressure inside the glass. Ext.D4 is the copy of application form for permit. Ext.D5 is the copy of statement for repairing of broken front glass of the vehicle of complainant issued by Jaitech Motor Works for Rs.26,800/- dated 23/11/2001. Ext.D6 is the copy of Surveyor's report dated 30/11/2001. As per the Surveyor's report the assessed damage is Rs. 16,692.50. In this document the Surveyor stated that he had obtained a statement from the insured vehicle's driver and in that letter the driver mentioned that the glass is broken not due to hitting by other external object. Hence the incident cannot be treated as an accidental damage. Ext.D7 is the copy of repudiation letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 28/3/2002. In this letter the opposite party stated the reason for repudiating the claim. The Surveyor stated that the glass is broken not due to hitting by any other external object, ie., it is not an accidental damage. As the glass broken by itself while on the move, hence they have no liability to entertain the claim. Ext.D8 is the copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party requesting to return the bills submitted by him before the opposite party dated 4/4/2002. Ext.D9 is the copy of Advocate's notice issued by the complainant. Ext.D10 is the copy of reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 29/5/2002. Ext.D11 is the copy of claim form submitted by the complainant before the opposite party on 23/11/2001. Ext.D12 is the copy of policy certificate. 7. From the documents and evidences produced by the complainant and opposite party in this case there is no dispute regarding the existence of policy and the occurance of the incident. But nobody has produced the terms and conditions of the policy both parties produced only the policy certificate. From that document we can seen that the policy is comprehensive policy. As per the policy certificate the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.7,340/- for own damage basis to the opposite party. We cannot see any exclusion clause in the policy certificate that any damage caused not due to any external accidental means, the insurance is not liable for that damage. The opposite party has not stated the reason as per which clause of the terms and conditions of the policy they denied the claim. Hence we are of the opinion that it is reasonable to allow the amount assessed by the surveyor for the damage. Hence in the interest of natural justice and also considering the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act we allow this complaint In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.16,192.50 with 9% annual interest from 28/3/2002 till the date of realization and the opposite party also shall pay Rs.1,500/- as costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, ad. MEMBER. O.P.No.241/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of certificate cum policy schedule of Regn.No.KL-01-U-2001 P2 : Copy of letter dated 27/4/2002 issued to the opp. party P3 : Postal receipt No.2101 P4 : Postal acknowledgment card dated 29/4/2002 P5 : Letter dated 28/3/2002 issued by opp. Party Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents: D1 : Copy of Driving license and driver badge D2 : Photocopy of certificate of Registration book pages 2 to 5. D3 : Copy of letter dated 23/11/01 issued to the opp. Party by the complainant. D4 : Copy of permit in respect of a contract carriage with permit No.P.Co.C9/3/T/2001 dt. 17/1/2001 issued by Secretary, RTA, Tvpm. D5 : Copy of quotation for repairing dated 23/11/01 for Rs.26,800/-. D6 : Copy of private and confidential Motor (final) Survey report dt. 30/11/01 D7 : Copy of letter dated 28/3/2002 issued by the opp. Party. D8 : Copy of letter dated 4/4/02 issued to the opp.party D9 : Copy of advocate notice dated 20/4/2002 issued to opp. Party D10 : Copy of reply notice dated 29/5/2002 issued to the complainant D11 : Copy of Motor Claim Form with period of Insurance dated 18/10/2002. PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
