DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 1st day of December, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President (I/C)<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> C.C.No.75/2006<br /> R.T.Sukumaran,<br /> S/o.(Late) R.T.Appu,<br /> 16/185, 'Samanwayam',<br /> Lane – 3, Prathibha Nagar,<br /> Palakkad – 7. - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> The Branch Manager,<br /> National Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President I/C<br /> <br /> Complainant in this complaint has insured his house and house hold items as per policy No.570705/48/03/3601432 with the opposite party and he has renewed the policy till the date of filing. During February 2004 the complainant faced problems with his personal computer and the same was informed to the opposite party in advance. He submits that after getting clearance from the opposite party the complainant carried out the rectification of PC with Cerebral System, Palakkad. Complainant submitted a claim for Rs.6,150/- but the opposite party passed Rs.910/- only towards the settlement of the claim. Complainant submits that he has returned the voucher unsigned along with a letter. Complainant further submits that to the letter sent by complainant opposite party replied stating that a standard <br /> <br /> <br /> deduction of Rs.2,500/- was applicable and hence the opposite party could pay <br /> only Rs.910/- as per norms. He submits that again he sent a letter to opposite party stating that no such clause was mentioned anywhere in the terms and conditions and hence their settlement was not justifiable. <br /> <br /> Complainant submits that he renewed the policy during February 2004 by making payment through a cheque and sent it by courier to the opposite party. Opposite party accepted and policy was sent to complainant by post. He submits that he had taken policy for two wheeler as per Policy No.570705/31/03/6014787. He alleges that while renewing this policy in February 2004, the comprehensive term was removed and opposite party sanctioned only third party insurance coverage. Complainant submits that the two wheeler policy is in force since 1991 and every year the same is renewed. He further submits that after 13 years only the 3rd party coverage has given and the same was not mentioned anywhere in the terms and conditions. Though the complainant requested for reinstating the policy to comprehensive insurance vide letter dtd.29/04/04 the opposite party not replied for the same. Complainant alleges that the above acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. He further alleges that the opposite party willfully repudiated the claim on false and untenable grounds and thereby he has suffered mental agony and hardship for which the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.<br /> <br /> Hence he filed this complaint praying an order directing the opposite party;<br /> a. to pay the entire repair expenditure of computer i.e. Rs.6,150/-,<br /> b. to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages for the deficiency of service <br /> <br /> and for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant,<br /> c.to pay interest @ 24% p.a on the amount ordered to be paid by the forum<br /> and<br /> d.to pay the costs of this proceedings.<br /> <br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was served to the opposite parties for their appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegations except those which are specifically admitted. Opposite party avers that this complaint is not maintainable in the law since there is no cause of action for the complaint and it is barred by limitation. Opposite party admits that the complainant has availed a policy No.570705 48 04 3600001528 for the period from 17.02.2005 to 16.02.2006 under this policy the complainant claimed for the breakdown of BPL washing machine and BPL TV on 16.01.06 and opposite party prepared a voucher and a cheque bearing No.010889 dtd.08.02.06 for Rs.624/- and the complainant accepted the same. Opposite party submits that under the coverage of the said policy the complainant reported claim on 16.01.06 for the breakdown of his Yamaha make Electronic Key board and this claim also settled vide cheque No.460529 dtd.28.03.06 for Rs.600/- and the same was accepted by the complainant. Opposite party avers that from the above the complainant is fully aware of the settlement procedures and this opposite party is efficient in its service to the insured.<br /> <br /> Opposite party further contends that the issue of comprehensive policy to the petitioner is fully within the discretion of the opposite party and the issue of policy is a contract between the opposite party and the customer and the terms mutually agreed on need to accept the policy. Opposite party avers <br /> <br /> that the complainant's vehicle was as old as 13 years for which almost depreciated valued become very negligible and opposite party cannot offer a comprehensive policy as it is against the norms of the company. Opposite <br /> party states that the complainant has no right to interfere in the operation or the internal norms of the opposite party and it was open to the complainant to approach any other insurance company who agrees his terms. Opposite party contends that the coverage of third party is mandatory requirements and issued this policy and the complainant accepted it. Opposite party submits that they did not insist or compel the complainant to obtain third party policy. Moreover, if the alleged policy was not acceptable to the complainant he should have refused to accept, instead he had accepted the same and was in his possession and hence his contention is not sustainable.<br /> <br /> Opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service from this opposite party and prays to accept their contentions and to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs.<br /> <br /> Both parties filed affidavits as well as documents. Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 series marked on the side of opposite party. Heard the parties.<br /> <br /> We have perused the documents produced before the forum. It is true that the complainant has obtained a policy No. 570705/48/03/3601432 for a period from 17.02.04 to 16.02.05 as per the Ext.A8. The complainant has reported break down of computer to the opposite party and the opposite party has appointed a surveyor to conduct the survey and assess the loss. The survey report along with photographs which was marked as Exbt.B3 shows that the <br /> <br /> loss assessed as Rs.3,410/-. It is noticed from Ext.A6 that at the time of settlement of pc's claim an excess of Rs.2,500/- being deducted from the claim amount. But the opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that they had right to deduct of Rs.2,500/- as per the present policy terms and conditions of the policy which was marked as Ext.B1 does not show any clause <br /> for such standard deduction. It is therefore viewed that the said deduction by the opposite party is not just and proper which amounts to deficiency of service on their part. In the result the complaint is partly allowed.<br /> <br /> Hence we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,410/- (Rupees Three thousand four hundred and ten only) towards repair expenditure of computer as assessed by the surveyor along with Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as costs of this proceedings within one month from the date of communication of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realisation.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of December, 2007 <br /> <br /> President I/C (Sd)<br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 – Intimation letter issued by complainant to opposite party <br /> Ext.A2 (Series) – Bill dtd.20/03/04 and receipt<br /> Ext.A3 (Series) – Copy of letter sent to opposite party by the complainant along with courier receipt and photocopy of cheque.<br /> Ext.A4 – Copy of the voucher and receipt sent by opposite party to complainant<br /> <br /> Ext.A5 – Letter sent by complainant to opposite party dtd.31/03/04<br /> Ext.A6 – Letter issued by opposite party to complainant <br /> Ext.A7 – Letter sent by complainant to opposite party dtd.29/04/04<br /> Ext.A8 (Series) – Copy of the insurance policy<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Ext.B1 – Terms and conditions of the policy<br /> Ext.B2 – Cheque dtd.24/03/04 issued in favour of the complainant <br /> Ext.B3 (series) – Survey report along with photographs, intimation letter, claim form, estimate and bills (6 in Nos.)<br /> <br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order, <br /> (sd)<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent