1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that his Chevrolet Car bearing Regn. No.OR-10F-4858 duly insured with the OPs vide Policy No.3001/50139490/03/000 valid from 29.07.2009 to 28.07.2010 while  coming from Pottangi side to Jeypore on 13.01.2010 at about 3.10 AM met with an accident at Sipaiput under Pottangi PS of Koraput district.  It is submitted that the vehicle dashed with the Parapet of a Culvert and capsized to 5 ft. dip resulting extensive damage.  On intimation to Pottangi PS, it did not make a diary entry but the insurer deputed its Surveyor, Sri S. Ch. Bhoi to the spot of accident for survey and as per advice of insurer the vehicle was shifted to authorised showroom at Visakhapatnam. It is further submitted that a claim was registered vide No.MOT 1424496 and garage survey was conducted by the Ops.  As per advice of OP.1 the complainant submitted all papers in original and estimate of repairer at Rs.8.00 lacs.  The Ops assured to finalize the claim as per total loss keeping in view the insured value of the vehicle.  It is also further submitted that after considering the claim and receiving the documents, the Ops remained silent for pretty long period and hence the complainant sent registered notice to OP.2 on 02.02.2012 and 02.12.2014 with copy to OP.1 but to no avail.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay the insured amount of Rs.3, 78,468/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.2.00 lacs towards compensation and Rs.10, 000/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in this proceeding in any manner.  The OP No.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the insurance cover to the vehicle as well as accident to the insured vehicle on 13.01.2010.  It is contended that the claim was registered vide No.MOT 0142      4496 and the authorised Surveyor assessed the approximate liability at Rs.1, 90, 000/- but after prolonged discussion with the complainant, the Insurance Co. agreed to pay the claim under cash loss at Rs.2, 50,000/- to which the complainant agreed but in spite of approach the complainant did not sign the Indemnity Bond for which the Ops issued letter dt.20.7.2010 instructing the complainant to dismantle the vehicle and carry out the repair as per surveyor estimate.  It is further submitted that in spite of instruction the complainant remained silent without undertaking repair as a result of which the claim of the complainant could not be processed.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The parties have filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case insurance policy vide No.3001/50/39490/03/000 valid from 29.7.2009 to 28.7.2010 obtained by the complainant from the Ops in respect of his (AVEO) Chevrolet Car bearing No. OR 10F 4858 and the accident of the insured vehicle on 13.1.2010 at Sipaiput under Pottangi PS of Koraput district are all admitted facts.  It is also admitted fact that the complainant has intimated the fact of accident to OP.1 and the Ops have deputed their surveyor for spot survey on 02.02.2010.  The spot Surveyor report dt.05.02.10 is available on record which shows that the vehicle dashed against the Parapet wall of the Culvert as a result of which the front side of the vehicle was totally damaged and fell down to 5ft dip from surface of the road.  The Surveyor had contacted the showroom of the vehicle at Visakhapatnam regarding cost of repair.  He ascertained from the repairer as well as from the complainant that the cost of repair will be nearly Rs.8.00 lacs whereas the insured value of the vehicle is Rs.3, 78,468/-.

5.                     The OP.2 stated in his counter that after receipt of intimation of accident they registered the claim on 17.1.2010 vide Claim No.MOT 01424496 and Surveyor assessed insurer’s liability at Rs.1, 90,000/- but after several round of discussions with the complainant, the Ops agreed to pay the claim under cash loss of Rs.2, 50,000/- to which the complainant agreed but in spite of repeated approach the complainant did not sign the Indemnity Bond for which the claim could not be processed.  The Ops further stated that as the complainant did not turn up, they issued a letter dt.20.7.2010 intimating the complainant that they are not in a position to settle the claim under cash loss and instructed to carry out repairs as per the estimate of the surveyor of the Ops.  By giving this instruction, the Ops made the complainant bound to repair the vehicle as per their decision which in our opinion is an unfair trade practice adopted by them.  However, in the said letter, the OP has admitted that he has received the duly filled in claim form, policy copy, R. C. Book and repair estimate of Rs.8, 44,000/- from the complainant.

6.                     The complainant stated in his complaint petition that after receipt of all original documents, the Ops remained silent for pretty long period and his repeated approach did not yield any result and hence he got issued registered letters on 02.02.2012 and 02.12.2014 requesting the Ops to settle the claim amount.  The complainant has filed postal receipts in support of sending the above letters to Ops whereas the Ops have neither filed postal receipts if any nor any A.D. with endorsement of the complainant in support of their letters to the complainant.

7.                     The matter being thus, the OP at para-13 of his counter stated that this case is barred by limitation as the cause of action ends on 20.07.2010.  It is seen that due to non settlement of claim after such a longer period, the complainant has wrote two letters ended with dt.02.12.2014.  Nowhere in their documents, had the Ops stated that the claim file of the complainant has been closed or they have repudiated the claim of the complainant.   In insurance cases, the cause of action ends from the date of repudiation and consumer complainants can be filed within 2 years from the date of such repudiation.  As the Ops have not repudiated the claim of the complainant in this case till date, it can be safely concluded and hold that the present case is not barred by time.

8.                     In this case, the Ops have not filed garage survey report but filed a copy of unsigned assessment sheet of claim details stated to be furnished by their Surveyor, M. Raja.  Perused the assessment sheet and found that after allowing depreciation cost on each item @ 50% and 25%, the said assessment says that the insurer’s liability is Rs.1, 90,000/-.  However, the Ops without depending on the report of the Surveyor they have discussed with the complainant and as per their statement, both the parties have agreed for settlement of claim under cash loss of Rs.2, 50,000/-.  Now the complainant is claiming the insured value in this case.  The complainant has also furnished the repairer bill worth Rs.8.44 lacs before the Ops.  Further the letters of the complainant are lying unattended by the Ops.  There is no clear cut proposal from the Ops that they are agreed to settle the claim under cash loss basis enabling the complainant to go ahead for necessary action.  The above inactions of the Ops in our opinion certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part for which the complainant is suffering till date.

9.                     In this case the complainant furnished repairer bill worth Rs.8.44 lacs before the Ops.  The Surveyor assessed loss at Rs.1, 90,000/- whereas the insured value of the vehicle is Rs.3, 78,468/-.  The Ops stated that after several round of talks with complainant, both the parties agreed to settle the claim under cash loss basis at Rs.2, 50,000/-.  The above assessments of different nature are precarious nature as we found.

10.                   After giving careful thought to the rival contentions raised before us, we are of the considered opinion that the proposal of the Ops to settle the claim at Rs.2, 50,000/- under cash loss basis will not be prejudiced to any of the parties.  As the claim remained unsettled and the money was with the Ops, the said amount certainly bears interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 13.1.2010.  Had the Ops repudiated the claim, the rate of interest would have been counted from the date of said repudiation.  Further the complainant has also approached the Ops on different dates through registered letters.  The complainant has claimed Rs.2.00 lacs towards compensation from the Ops through this case.  Due to not settlement of claim and inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have sustained some mental agony but as we have already awarded higher side of interest, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.3000/- towards costs.

11.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.2, 50,000/- towards insurance claim with interest @ 12% p.a. from 13.1.2010 and to pay Rs.3000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)