BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.1/2017

Dated this the  4^th  day of September 2017

(Date of Institution: 23.01.2017)

S. Balamurugan, son of Srinivasan

No.197, 2^nd Floor, 4^th Cross,

Thirumagal Nagar, Velrampet

Puducherry – 605 004.

….     Complainant

Vs

1.  The Authorised Officer                

      HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTIED                

      6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road

      Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059.

2. The Authorised Officer                               

    HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTIED               

    1^st Floor, No.23, City Towers, Gayathri Nagar, 100 ft. road

    Mudaliarpet, Puducherry – 605 004.

                                       ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

Tmt.  D. KAVITHA,  B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Thiru U. Mohan Ilayaraja, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:  Thiru K. Ravikumar, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(by Thiru A. Asokan, President)

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,610/- being the insurance claim amount towards the vehicle bearing Regn. No. PY-01 BT 3355 with subsequent interest from 21.09.2016 at the rate of 12% per annum; to pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs as damages for the mental agony suffered by him due to the opposite parties negligence and insufficiency in service with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition as compensation and to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- for this complaint.    

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant purchased a Toyota Etios Car bearing Regn. No. PY 01 BT 3355 on 24.07.2016 by obtaining loan from HDFC Bank and the car also covered insurance with the opposite parties insurance company valid from 02.09.2016 to 01.09.2017.  While so, on 02.09.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. the vehicle met with a minor accident with a two wheeler and got damaged in left side fender, front bumper and scratches in the body and the same was informed to one Karthikeyan who is an employee of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties appointed a Surveyor who inspected the vehicle, taken photos and advised the complainant to produce the vehicle for service and get estimate for the repair cost to claim insurance and the complainant received estimate and sent mail to the opposite parties.  Thereafter, the opposite parties rejected the claim made by the complainant stating that the damages were pre-inspection damages.  Hence, the complainant filed this complaint. 

3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by alleged that the claim made by the complainant is a money claim and hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and denied the allegations raised by the complainant in the complaint.  The opposite parties further resisted the complaint by alleging that the damages sustained by the car during the pre-inspection were Front Bumper-Dented, Dicky – spot dent, Left Front Fender-Dented, Left running board – spot dent.  As per the declaration No.3 of the Inspection Report, it was agreed that the repair / replacement of dented / crack parts and repair painting of dented / scratched panels shall be excluded in the event of any claim lodged during the policy period.  The Surveyor had submitted his report stating that the damages claimed by the complainant were pre-existing damages and recommended to close the claim as "No Claim".  Further, there is no possibility of the car sustaining damages as claimed by the complainant by an accident with a Two-Wheeler and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.  The complainant was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C12 were marked.  Ex.R1 was marked during cross examination of CW1.  Hence, the matter was posted for OP side evidence.  While the things being so, both the complainant and the opposite partied filed a joint compromise memo alleging that "they have settled the above case or a sum of Rs.16,000/- and that the complainant agreed to receive the same towards full and final settlement of his claim and he shall have no other claim against the opposite parties with regard to the subject matter of the case and that the complainant shall have no claim as regards the interest and cost and that the opposite parties shall pay the said amount through cheque directly to the complainant". 

5.  In view of the above joint compromise memo, this complaint is disposed.  However, there is no order as to costs. 

Dated this the 4^th  day of September  2017.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

   MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW1           12.06.2017           S. Balamurugan

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  NIL

COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS MARKED THROUGH CW1:

Ex.R1                   Pre-inspection Photos

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:  NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

   MEMBER