DATE OF FILING : 28.10.2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the   30th  day of  May,  2017

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.351/204

Between

Complainant       :    M.K. Ravi, S/o. K. Kurumban,

9/411, Manackambil House,

           Chithirapuram P.O.,

    Pallivasal, Idukki – 685 565.

  (By Adv:  Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties                                        :   1.  The Branch manager,

     Reliance General Insurance,

     2nd Floor, Vishnu, K.P. Vallan Road,

     Kadavanthra, Kochi – 682 020.  

2.  The Manager,

     Muthoot Honda,

     Adimali P.O., 

     Idukki.

    (By Advs:   K.J. Thomas 

&  Sijimon K. Augustine)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

The case of the complainant is that

 

On 4.3.2014, the complainant parked his Honda Activa scooter bearing Reg. No.KL-68-379, purchased from 2nd opposite party and duly insured with 1st opposite party, on the road side of complainant's house.  At about 5.30 p.m., one goods carriage vehicle bearing Reg. No.KCF-4012, was coming to the way to the complainant's house, to unload granite powder.  This vehicle in an attempt to climb the steep road, lost its control and rolled back and run over through the complainant's parked vehicle.  Due to that, the vehicle caused severe damages and immediately the matter was intimated to one Satheesh, the manager of 2nd opposite party in his mobile No.9446097149.  One 5.3.2014, the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party and signed the job card.  The documents such as driving licence, insurance policy and RC Book 

(cont....2)

-  2  -

also entrusted to them for processing the insurance claim, as they demanded.  The complainant further contacted with one Binoy Mathew and intimated this matter.  On 9.3.2014, the said Binoy Mathew directed the complainant to inform the matter to the local police and to get a G.D entry.  Accordingly, the complainant registered a G.D entry in Vellathooval Police Station on 9.3.2014. 

 

After thorough inspection, 2nd opposite party prepared a detailed estimate of more than Rs.45000/-.  Since the amount was above IDV, the complainant requested the 1st opposite party to settle the claim by considering it as total loss.

 

On 23.6.2014, the vehicle was repaired and informed the complainant that the vehicle was ready for delivery and the complainant received the vehicle by paying an amount of Rs.47795/-.  On 11.7.2014, the complainant received a letter from 1st opposite party, stating that, his claim is repudiated on the ground that complainant delayed in intimating the matter to the opposite parties.  The complainant further stated that it is a foul play from the part of the 2nd opposite party, for getting more amount and started repair work after getting the consent letter from the complainant.  If the total loss claim was sanctioned, the 2nd opposite party would not have benefited much. Eventhough the claim was intimated in time, the 1st opposite party repudiated the claim and it is a gross deficiency in service and the complainant approached this Forum and filed this complaint for getting the insured amount and in addition to it, Rs.25000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost from the opposite parties.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed version.  In their version, 1st opposite party admitted the policy of the vehicle and its accident.  1st opposite party further contended that they are not aware of intimation of the accident to the manager of 2nd opposite party.  The insurance claim in respect of the alleged vehicle was intimated to the 1st opposite party was only on 13.5.2014.  Neither complainant nor the 2nd opposite party intimated this matter to the 1st opposite party before 13.5.2014.  On 13.5.2014, the 1st opposite party deputed Mr. Binoy Mathew, their employee.  The surveyor was deputed only after getting information of the claim.  The surveyor assessed damages and submitted report.  On perusal of survey report and other documents, it is observed that, the complainant has intimated the loss to the 1st opposite party on 13.5.2014, that is after 69 days of the accident and thus he has committed the breach of condition number one of the policy.  The condition No.1 states that “notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance

        (cont....3)

-  3  -

as the company shall require.”  The repudiation was intimated to the complainant by letter dated 11.7.2014.  As there is a violation of condition of the policy, the complainant is not entitled for insurance claim from the 1st opposite party.  So there is no deficiency from the part of 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party further stated that, the bill amount is excessive.  More that, the amount recommended by the surveyor is collected by 2nd opposite party towards labour charges.  All the spare parts in the bill are not recommended by the surveyor for replacement.

 

The 2nd opposite party in their reply version denied all the averements in the complaint and further stated that the averement regarding the insurance are not known to them.  Moreover, this opposite party had not given assurance as stated in the complaint.  This opposite party is dealing with sales and services of the vehicle and not dealing with insurance policies.  2nd opposite party further stated that, the plaint averement regarding the communication between one Arun Chandrasekhar on 19.6.2014 with the complainant and obtained a consent letter from the complainant are false and denied.  Moreover, while the repair work was going on, the complainant compelled the opposite party for doing unnecessary works like changing of parts which are not damaged, stating that he will get entire amount through claim from 1st opposite party and given written consent for the same.  Further this, opposite party repaired the vehicle to the full satisfaction of the complainant and received the repairing charges from him.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of this opposite party in this matter.  Disbursement or repudiation of claim are not related to this opposite party.

 

From the prosecution side, complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked.  Ext.P1 is copy of RC Book.  Ext.P2 is copy of insurance policy.  Ext.P3 is copy of G.D entry.  Ext.P4 is copy of tax invoice dated 31.5.2014.  Ext.P5 is copy of repudiation letter.  Ext.P6 is copy of call history to the mobile No.974401792.   From the defence side, Arun Chandrasekhar, service in charge of 2nd opposite party and one Cherian Kurian, Legal Claim Manager of 1st  opposite party was examined as DW1 and DW2 respectively.  Exts.R1 to R9 were marked.  Ext.R1 is copy of consent letter dated 20.6.2014.  Ext.R2 is copy of tax invoice dated 31.5.2014.  Ext.R3 is copy of policy with terms and conditions.  Ext.R4 is copy of claim letter.  Ext.R5 is the letter issued to the 1st opposite party by the complainant dated 5.3.2014.  Ext.R6 is copy of survey report.  Ext.R7 is copy of estimate dated 30.5.2014.  Ext.R8 is tax invoice dated 31.5.2014.  Ext.R9 is copy of repudiation letter dated 11.7.2014.

(cont....4)

-  4  -

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

Heard both sides.

 

The POINT :-  We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records and depositions.  The fact of the complaint is that immediately after the accident, the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party's workshop at Adimali and also entrusted all the documents relating to the vehicle including his driving licence, on the firm belief that opposite party will inform the matter to the 1st opposite party, the insurer of the vehicle.  Being an authorised dealer cum service agent, it is the primary duty of the 2nd opposite party to intimate the matter to the insurance company immediately, since the vehicle is insured through them.  The manager of the 2nd opposite party, who examined as DW1 specifically admitted that they intimated the matter to the 1st opposite party immediately, moreover on getting information from 2nd opposite party.  1st opposite party deputed their surveyor and the surveyor after assessing the damages, prepared survey report and mahazar.  The survey report is produced by the 1st opposite party and marked it as Ext.R6.  By going through this exhibit, we can see that the surveyor assessed the loss after verifying the bills and found that the gross amount received by the 2nd opposite party for repairing the vehicle was Rs.47,335/- and insurance company's liability is Rs.30,687/-.  But unfortunately, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant due to delayed intimation, that is violation of the policy conditions No.1.

 

Here it is pertinent to note that, if the insurance company get delayed intimation in this matter, for what purpose they appointed a surveyor and obtained a survey report.  After a gap of two months of getting the survey report, 1st opposite party intimated the matter of repudiation, that is on 11.7.2014 (Ext.P5).  If it is a delayed information or delayed claim, why they repudiated it immediately before processing further.   In this case, no evidence is produced by the opposite party insurance company to convince the Forum that there is a violation of policy condition No.1 or the intimation is delayed.  Here the justification of the 1st opposite party is not sufficient to deny the claim of the complainant, since there is valid policy at the time of the accident.  Moreover, the 1st opposite party company or surveyor not challenged the accident.  Hence the act of the 1st opposite party to repudiate the claim of the complainant without valid and sufficient reason is a sheer deficiency in service and it is not just and proper.  (cont....5)

-  5  -

 

On the basis of the above discussion, the complaint allowed.  The 1st opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,687/- as insurance company's liability specifically stated in the Ext.R6 survey report and also directed to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost, to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing the amount mentioned in the three heads will carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till realisation.

 

      Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2017

 

 

         Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont....6)

 

-  6  -

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -  Dhaneesh M.R.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  Arun Chandrasekhar.

DW2              -  Cherian Kurian.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1             -  copy of RC Book.  

Ext.P2            -  copy of insurance policy.  

Ext.P3            - copy of G.D entry.  

Ext.P4            -  copy of tax invoice dated 31.5.2014.

Ext.P5            -  copy of repudiation letter.  

Ext.P6            -  copy of call history to the mobile No.974401792.  

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -  copy of consent letter dated 20.6.2014. 

Ext.R2          -   copy of tax invoice dated 31.5.2014. 

Ext.R3          -   copy of policy with terms and conditions.

Ext.R4          -   copy of claim letter.  

Ext.R5          -  the letter issued to the 1st opposite party by the complainant

      dated 5.3.2014.  

Ext.R6          -  copy of survey report.  

Ext.R7          -  copy of estimate dated 30.5.2014.  

Ext.R8          -  tax invoice dated 31.5.2014.  

Ext.R9          -  copy of repudiation letter dated 11.7.2014.

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT