IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 28^th day of February, 2011

Filed on 15.03.10

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.67/10

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Party:-

Sri.Sureshkumar,                                        M/s.H.D.F.C ERGO General Insurance

Ushasree,                                                   Company Ltd., 4E, 4^th Floor,

Mattom North,                                           K.G.Oxford Business Centre Sreekandath Road,

Thattarambalam,                                         Ravipuram, Kochi, Represented by its Authorised

Mavelikkara.                                              Signatory and Claims Officer.

(By Adv.R.Sreenivas)                                 (By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)                

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

            The complainant is the registered owner of the Ford Fiesta car bearing No. KL-31-3131. The said vehicle, on 18^th December 2009 met with an accident with a Tipper Lorry and got damaged. At the time of the accident, the complainant was holding a valid insurance for the vehicle from the opposite party. The factum of the accident was duly informed to the opposite party through its authorized agent. As per the instruction of the said agent, the complainant on 23^rd December 2009 produced the vehicle in the showroom along with the claim form and other relevant records. On 13^th January 2009, representative of the opposite party visited the complainant and recorded the statement of the complainant with regard to the accident. The show room authorities were disinclined to revamp the vehicle in as much as the claim of the complainant was not sanctioned by the opposite party. However, the said vehicle was got repaired and returned to the complainant on expiry of around fifty days, and for the same the complainant had to incur an amount of Rs.73000/-(Rupees seventy three thousand only). The complainant repeatedly contacted the opposite party and sought information as to the progress of the proceedings of his policy claim. The opposite party tendered encouraging assurances on every occasion only to eventually, repudiate the claim of the complainant. The opposite party repudiated the said claim vide letter 24^th February 2010 on the ground that there was inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in intimating the factum of accident to the opposite party.  As a matter of fact, there was no delay as alleged by the opposite party. The repudiation of claim was on flimsy grounds. There is visible deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. With the result, the complainant sustained huge financial loss, hardship and mental agony. Aggrieved by the same the complainant approached this Forum seeking a direction to be given to the opposite party to settle the claim in his favor and other relief.

1. Notice was sent. The opposite party appeared and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant submitted the claim form belatedly on 6^th January 2010. The complainant denied to the opposite party, the opportunity of spot inspection. Immediately there after a surveyor was appointed and the damage sustained by the vehicle in question was assessed. The surveyor on 8^th February 2010 sought to the complainant clarification as to the delay in lodging the claim. The opposite party even sent reminders as to the same. The complainant did not make it a point to respond to any of the opposite party’s communication seeking clarification, the opposite party alleges. The conduct of the complainant is an outright violation of the condition of the policy. The non-­response of the complainant could only be treated as 'no claim'. More over the amount claimed by the complainant is also exorbitant. The surveyors assessment is mere Rs.63245/-(Rupees sixty three thousand two hundred forty five only). The complainant is not entitled to even that much amount, for there is absolute violation of the policy condition. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost, the opposite party asserts.

2. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl, and the documents Exbits Al to A4 were marked. Exbt Al is the bill receipt, A2 is the GD entry, A3 is the tax invoice and A4 is the letter from the surveyor. On the side of the opposite party, the manager of the opposite party filed a proof affidavit, and the documents Exbts Bl to B6 were marked. Exbt Bl is the copy of the policy, B2 and B3 are the letters dated 8^th and 24^th February 2010 sent by the surveyor respectively, B4 is the survey report, B5 is the claim form and B6 is the policy conditions.

3. Keeping in view the contentions of both the parties the issues arise for consideration are:-

(l) Whether there was delay on the part of the complainant in intimating the accident to the opposite party?

(2) Whether the there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

4. We perused the materials available on record. The accident, policy and the damage sustained to the vehicle all are not virtually challenged or disputed. The opposite party appears to have denied the claim on the ground that the complainant intimated the factum of accident belatedly to the opposite party. There is a delay of 20 days, and it is a violation of the condition of the policy, the opposite party vehemently argues. On the basis of the said view, the claim by the complainant was practically repudiated. It is worthy of notice that the definite case of the complainant is that the accident was promptly intimated to the authorized agent of the opposite party. It is in line with his instruction that the vehicle was produced in the showroom one or two days after the accident. In the cross examination, the complainant appears to have asserted in similar lines. Surprisingly enough, the opposite party does not make it a point to disprove the contentions advanced by the complainant. No useful steps seemed to have been taken by the opposite party in this regard. We are of the view that even if it is assumed that there is a delay of few days, the same by itself cannot be a ground to repudiate the complainant’s claim, more so when no prejudice caused by the said delay is proved by the opposite party. In the light of this, we hold that the contention put forth by the opposite party to refuse the claim of the complainant does not merit acceptance. Needless to say the complainant is entitled to the amount he incurred to get the vehicle repaired. Turning its back on a legitimate claim, the opposite party committed deficiency of service, and inflicted agony to the complainant.

5. In the backdrop of the facts and findings herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant the amount he incurred for the patch up of his vehicle viz. an amount of Rs.73000/-(Rupees seventy three thousand only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the repudiation of the claim till the payment/ recovery of the same. The opposite party is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25000/-­(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and a cost amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.

Complaint stands disposed accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2011

.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi           

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Sureshkumar.S(Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The bill receipt

Ext. A2            -           The GD entry

Ext. A3            -           The tax invoice 

Ext. A4            -           The letter from the surveyor

Evidence of the opposite party:- 

Proof affidavit in lieu of position

Ext. B1            -           The copy of the policy

Ext. B2            -           The letter dated 8^th February 2010 sent by the surveyor

Ext. B3            -           The letter dated 24^th February 2010 sent by the surveyor

Ext. B4            -           The survey report

Ext. B5             -           The claim form

Ext. B6            -           The policy conditions

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-