DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 19th day of March 2011
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 15/05/2010
(C.C.No.69/2010)
Pradeepkumar
S/o.Gangadharan Nair
Markkasserry House, Thekkumuri
Karalmanna, Ottapalam
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.K.Tony Jose)
V/s
1. The Branch Manager
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
TSM Complex,
Town Railway Station Road,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.S.T.Suresh)
2. The Branch Manager
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.7, Uthamar Ghandhi Salai
11nd Floor, Rosy Towers
Nungampakkam,
Chennai - 600374
(By Adv.S.T.Suresh) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K. MEMBER
Complainant purchased an Eicher 10.75 Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-09-S-3846 after obtaining financial assistance from a financing company. The complainant got the vehicle insured with the opposite party insurance company vide Policy No.411300/31/2007/18206. The said policy is a comprehensive policy which commences from 14/1/2007 till 13/1/2008.
The said vehicle met with an accident at Kanniyampuram near Ottapalam and sustained heavy damages on 4/8/2007. Thereafter the damages were assessed by the authorised surveyor appointed by the opposite parties. The complainant has incurred an expense of Rs.15,375/- for repairing the damaged vehicle. The complainant has submitted a claim form for own damages in the prescribed manner seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,375/- But the opposite parties neither granted the amount claimed nor repudiated the claim.
The complainant earns his livelihood from the income generated from plying the above said vehicle. Due to the accident the complainant could not ply the vehicle and pay the monthly installment towards the finance company. On 23/1/2010 the complainant sent a lawyer notice stating all the facts to the opposite party. But the opposite party has not disbursed the amount to the complainant. Complainant says that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service on their part. Hence the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.15,375/- as repair charges for the damaged vehicle, Rs.30,000/- as compensation for financial loss and Rs.30,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant.
Opposite party filed version with the following contentions.
Opposite party admits the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-9-S-3846 is insured with the opposite parties. But about the accident occurred on 4/8/2007 at Kanniyampuram and sustaining heavy damages to the vehicle are not known to the opposite parties. The allegation that the damages were assessed by the authorised surveyor appointed by the opposite party are false and incorrect. Neither the alleged accident was reported to the opposite party No.2 nor any surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. There was no claim intimation within a reasonable time and company cannot entertain any claim. For the notice issued by the complainant, 2nd opposite party has sent a reply on 22/2/2010 expressing company's inability to entertain the claim as the same was not reported to the company. Failure to intimate the accident immediately to the insurance company is a breach of policy. The complainant has not mentioned the name of the surveyor and name of the workshop where the vehicle was prepared in the notice as well as complaint. In para (2) of the complaint, the date of accident has been mentioned on 4/8/2007. Where as para (10) the date of accident is shown as 12/9/2010.
The opposite parties also alleges that the claim is barred by limitation. The alleged date of accident is on 4/8/2007. The notice sent only on 23/1/2010. So the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs to the opposite parties.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits and Ext.A1 series marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
Issue that arises for consideration are
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties ?
2.If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?
The complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not disbursing the amount claimed as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The complainant purchased an Eicher 10.75 Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-9-S-3846 after obtaining financial assistance from Shriram Transport Finance Company and insured with the opposite party's insurance company vide Policy No.411300/31/2007/18206. The said vehicle met with an accident at Kanniyampuram near Ottapalam and sustained heavy damages on 4/8/2007. Thereafter the damages are assessed by the authorised surveyor appointed by the opposite parties. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.15,375/- to repair the damaged vehicle. The complainant submitted a claim form for own damages in the prescribed manner seeking compensation but the opposite parties have neither granted the amount nor repudiated the claim.
Opposite parties admit that the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd opposite party. But the alleged accident is not known to the opposite parties. Opposite parties contents that neither the alleged accident was reported to the 2nd opposite party nor any surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. And there was no intimation within a reasonable time and company cannot entertain any claim.
The complainant says that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 4/8/2007 and an authorised surveyor appointed by opposite parties assessed the damages. To prove the case of the complainant no documentary evidence is adduced. If the surveyor has assessed the damage the complainant can very well produce the report. It is to be noted that complainant has not taken any steps to call for any documents from the opposite parties also. So the complainant miserably failed to turn the case in his favour.
Opposite parties says that the alleged accident is not intimated to the opposite parties and no surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties to assess the damages.
In the absence of the sufficient documentary evidence we can't attribute deficiency of service on the part opposite parties. In the result complaint dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th Day of March 2011.
Sd/-
Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 series – Copy of lawyer notice dated 23/1/2010 with postal receipt &
acknowledgment cards and reply notice dated 22/2/10.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Reply notice issued to the complainant's counsel dated.22/2/10
