Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/344/2018

D.R.Jayaseelan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Ltd., & Other - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.A.Suresh

21 Sep 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :05.01.2012         

Date of disposal             :21.09.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai -600003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                    TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                          : MEMBER-I

                                 THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA    : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.344/2018

 

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 21^st  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

D.R. Jayaseelan,

S/o.Dharmasamy,

No.209/18-A, First Floor,

Sankarabakthan Street,

Ramalingapuram,

Chennai-12

                                                                                               .. Complainant.                                  

..Vs..

 

1.The Branch Manager,

Tata AIG General Insurance Ltd.,

No.1, CMC Road, Ethiraj Salai,

Egmore, Chennai-8

 

2.The Authorized Officer,

Tata AIG General Insurance Ltd.,

Peninsula Corporate Park,

Nicholas Piramal Tower,

9^th floor, Ganpatrao Kadam marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

                                                                       ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. A.Suresh and 2 other.

 

Counsel for    opposite parties                  : M/s.M.B.Gopalan and 2 other

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.       : PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to directing the Opposite parties to pay the balance sum of Rs.73337/- which fell due in the claim to the complainant with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards the mental agony and cost of this complaint.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 9/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.344/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant submits that he has purchased a Hyundai  Getz GLS car Reg No. TN 20 AW 5288 from one Selvakumar T.A. and transferred the same in his name on 16.04.2010. The complainant has paid the periodical renewal of the insurance policy for the vehicle to the opposite parties vide policy no.015089364800 dated:23.06.2010 valid till 22.06.2011.  The complainant further submitted that on 05.03.2011 at about 03.30 A.M. when the brother of the complainant Mr.D.R.Binesh was driving the vehicle while returning from Madurai a lorry came in a rash and negligent manner very close to the insured vehicle. To avoid the accident the complainant’s brother has turned the vehicle to the other side, which unfortunately resulted in a minor accident whereby the vehicle dashed a divider in between the road and got damaged in the right side.  The complainant submitted that the driver preferred a complaint before Soolakarai Police station, Soolakkarai, Virudhunagar on the same day on 05.03.2011 vide CSR No.0113166. The police issued certificate for the accident.  The complainant has made his claim to the opposite parties on the same day on 05.03.2011 within 24 hours and intimation to the opposite parties about accident within 24 hours. The complainant further submitted that he approached the opposite parties for claim, the opposite parties have been refusing to entertain his claim. It is further submitted that the complainant has spent more than Rs.1,48,041/- and the expenditure and payment bills issued by the company where the vehicle was serviced will clearly establish the above facts. The complainant submitted that he issued a legal notice on 20.04.2011.  The opposite parties called upon the complainant and paid half of the claim.  When the complainant asked for the balance payment the 1^st opposite party informed that as and when he received only Rs.74704/- dated 19.05.2011.  The complainant informed that unless the full payment is made he will not acknowledge the same and the opposite parties are not coming forward to settle the claim.  The complainant prays that the balance amount a  sum of Rs.73337/- with interest and compensation.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF   OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties deny each and every averments made by the complainant as false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same. The complainant’s Hyundai Getz car bearing Reg no. TN 20 AW 5288 was insured with opposite parties .  The coverage was subject to terms and conditions stipulated in the policy which the complainant has suppressed. The complainant intimated damage to the vehicle in accident on 05.03.2011.  It was admitted that driver of the car had swerved the vehicle and hit a road median. The damage to the vehicle attributable to the accident was entirely on the front side.  Immediately on receipt or intimation of claim the opposite parties appointed surveyor Mr. Deepak parmar. The complainant submitted his repaired vehicle bill on 31.03.2011 which was found not confined only to accidental damage due to the accident but also for wear and tear damage such as rusting and maintenance.  Though there was no damage to the left or right side of the vehicle due to the accident, it was found that right side running board which had rusted and left hand side doors were repaired which were all unrelated to the accident.  Similarly items such as wiper, motor and pump assembly etc. were not damaged due to the accident.  Apparently the complainant’s vehicle was more that 4 ½ years old and well used had various other repairs and maintenance due to the age wear and tear which had all been done along with the accident repair work.  The opposite parties are not liable for such repairs.  The surveyor submitted final report dated 02.05.2011 assessing damage relevant to accident repairs at Rs.74704/-.  The surveyor had clearly identified that Rs.36,044/- was deductible for depreciation and excess and Rs.33706/- was unrelated to the accident. The opposite parties is liable only for damage arising due to accident which is confined to the front side of the vehicle whereas the complainant had in the course of such repairs had also made wear and tear/maintenance repairs which are not covered under the policy.  The total repair charges Rs.148041/- is incorrect.  Final bill was for Rs.144454/- only which included repairs which are not covered by the accident.  The opposite parties has committed no deficiency in service.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainant had filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on his side.  The opposite parties had filed written version, proof affidavit, written argument and documents Ex.B1 to B4 was marked on their side. 

4. Point No.1:-

          The complainant had purchased a Hyundai Getz Car with reg no. TN 20 AW 5288 which was transferred to his name on 16.04.2010 and it was having valid policy till 22.06.2011 with the opposite parties.  It is stated that on 05.03.2011 at 03.30am when the brother of the complainant drove the vehicle it met with a minor accident thereby the vehicle dashed against the road divider and got damaged in the right side for which a police complaint was lodged on the same date at Soolakkarai police station and CSR was issued and intimation of the accident was also given to the opposite parties within 24 hours and a claim was made for the repair expenditure of Rs.148041/-  with insurance company but after several attempts a 2^nd opposite party paid only Rs.74704/- by cheque dated 19.05.2011 and still there is due of Rs.73337/- which is yet to be paid by the opposite parties and further contended that the act of the opposite parties in not paying the amount inspite of repeated request amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and pray to pay the above said balance amount with interest and also claimed compensation for mental agony.

    5. But on the other hand it was contended by the opposite parties that the car was insured with the opposite parties under a private car package policy and it was subject to terms and conditions stipulated in the policy which was suppressed by the complainant and as per the policy the liability is confined only to accidental damages subject to depreciation and further stated that the damage to the vehicle is only on the front side and immediately an independent surveyor was appointed to assess the damage and the said surveyor after inspection has given a final report on 02.05.2011 by assessing damage relevant to accident repairs at Rs.74704/- and he has stated that Rs.36044/- was deductable for depreciation and excess Rs.33706/- was unrelated to accident and after perusal of the report and documents the claim was approved and paid Rs.74704/- on 18.05.2011 as final settlement to the complainant and further stated there was no delay in paying the amount and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6.   The policy in respect of the car is marked as Ex.A1, the copy of the complaint given to police is marked as Ex.A2, the CSR receipt is marked as Ex.A3, as per Ex.A4 it is found that the car was damaged in the accident but the exact portion of the damage is not stated in the Ex.A4, the expenditure and service bills were marked as Ex.A6, the cheque payment by opposite parties on 19.05.2011 is marked as Ex.A7 according to complainant this is only part payment whereas the opposite parties claims that it is full  and final payment. The insurance policy with terms and conditions is marked as Ex.B1 the percentage of deduction for depreciation is shown in page.1 of Ex.B1 it is found that the depreciation value is arrived based on the age of the vehicle.  Ex.B2 is claim form and B3 are repair bills the survey report is marked as Ex.B4 along with photographs of the car.  In Ex.B4 at Page 29 the surveyor has given details about the damages which are relevant to the accident and further stated that the vehicle is aged 4-5 years and assessed the liability as per the policy conditions to Rs.74704/- and stated that the insured has carried out additional work and other maintenance work on his charges which were not relevant to the accident and not assessed by him.  At Page 35 of Ex.B4 the nature of damage and the value of item replaced were mentioned by the surveyor.  It is found that the surveyor has properly analyzed and assessed the damages to the vehicle which were relevant to the accident and there is no force in the contention of the complainant that the company is liable to pay the entire claim of Rs.148041/- the complainant failed to prove that the entire expenditure and bills submitted by him relates to the damages sustained in the accident.  The opposite parties relied upon the a decision reported in 2021 SCC Online NCDRC 556 and also 2018 SCC Online NCDRC 1698 and contended that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the report submitted by the surveyor of the insurance company is to be accepted.  In the present case also it is found that the surveyor has properly assessed the damages to the vehicle after deducting the depreciation value and has given a report stating the limits of liability of opposite party under the policy and it is found that there is no infirmity or defect in the report submitted by the surveyor.  As far as the claim is concerned  the full and final  amount was settled by the opposite party by way of cheque dated 19.05.2011 which is marked as Ex.A7 within a period of 75 days from the date of accident and hence there is no delay or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  Hence it is found that there is no unfair trade practice or contract or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 21^st  day of September 2022.

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	23.06.2010	Insurance policy.
Ex.A2	05.03.2011	Copy of the complaint.
Ex.A3	05.03.2011	Copy of the CSR
Ex.A4	05.03.2011	Copy of the accident certificate.
Ex.A5	20.04.2011	Copy of the legal Notice.
Ex.A6		Expenditure and service bills
Ex.A7	19.05.2011	Copy of the part payment cheque.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                  

Ex.B1		Insurance policy.
Ex.B2	14.03.2011	Claim form.
Ex.B3	31.03.2011	Repair bills.
Ex.B4	02.05.2011	Preliminary survey report.

                                     

 

MEMER – I                           MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT