DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 30^th day of August, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC.No.160/2009

S. Manikandan

S/o. Subramanian

L.T. Madom

Chakkanthara.P.O

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.M.R.Manikandan)

Vs

The Branch Manager

Reliance General Insurance Company

Opp. Town Bus Stand,

T.B.Road,

Palakkad 678014. - Opposite party

(By Adv.S.Mammu)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Case of the complainant is as follows:

Complainant is a self employed driver of a Tata Sumo bearing Reg. No.KL9T 9793 which is insured with the opposite party vide policy No.2209792338001774 for the period from 20/06/2009 to 19/06/2010 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The vehicle met with an accident on 15/09/2009 at Panthalampadam, Vadakkenchery. The same was informed to the opposite party and as per the direction of opposite party repair work was carried out for which an amount of Rs.33,650/- was incurred. When the complainant approached the opposite party for claim they said to come later on as the officer concerned was on leave. When the complainant approached the opposite party many a time for claim they repeated the same and refused to accept the claim application. On 22/10/2009 the complainant sent

the claim application to the opposite party by post. Then the complainant caused a

registered notice dt.12/11/2009 through Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur. But the

opposite party neither replied nor honoured the claim. Complainant alleges that the above act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.33,650/- being the claim, Rs.1,000/- as cost and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

The opposite party admits the insurance of the vehicle at the time of accident, but was not aware of the accident and nor directed the complainant to effect the repair of the vehicle. Opposite party contented that the complainant never approached the opposite party for any claim. Opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant that he has sent necessary documents by post to them. Complainant intimated the alleged accident to the opposite party only on 22/10/2009 without any proper explanation for the delay. By this attitude of the complainant, opposite party was prevented from investigating the accident. Opposite party received a registered letter intimating the accident from the complainant on 17/11/2009. Complainant intimated the accident only after the vehicle taken to the workshop for repair. Opposite party has appointed a surveyor for investigation. Opposite party contented that immediately after accident the complainant shifted the vehicle to the workshop at his choice without intimating the opposite party and attempted to fabricate the damages by repairing the vehicle by using old part and to claim the damages for new parts. As the mechanic is not willing for this fabrication, he shifted the vehicle to another workshop and effected the repair at his choice. Complainant has not revealed the name of the workshop where he has done the repair. Further repairing was not done from authorized workshop. Under the above circumstances the opposite party repudiated the claim. Complainant is not entitled for Rs.39,650/- as prayed for in the complaint. The amount claimed under different head is highly exorbitant, exaggerated and unreasonable. Hence it cannot be allowed. Opposite party prayed that the complaint be dismissed with compensatory costs.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Exts.A1 to A7 marked. Exts.A2 to A4 was marked subject to proof.

Issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

The definite case of the complainant is that a Tata Sumo vehicle of which he is owner and which is running a public carriage vehicle met with an accident on 15/09/2009. The vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party for the period 20/06/2009 to 19/06/2010. Even though accident was duly intimated and claim form along with requisite documents submitted before opposite party no steps was taken for settling his claim.

Opposite party on the other hand contented that the accident was not immediately informed to the opposite party and repairing was not done from authorized workshop. Also submitted that their investigation revealed that the complainant attempted to fabricate the damages by repairing the vehicle by using old part and to claim the damages for new parts.

We have gone through the entire evidence on record and heard the rival submissions of the learned counsels for both parties.

It is not disputed that the vehicle owned by the complainant met with an accident during the period of the coverage of the policy. Policy availed from opposite party also not disputed.

The main contention raised by the opposite party is that fact of accident was reported

to opposite party only after a long delay. According to opposite party the fact was known to them only after receipt of registered letter on 17/11/2009. Even then they appointed a Surveyor to investigate the matter and assess loss.

Complainant has submitted that the fact of accident was intimated personally to opposite party, the very next day of accident itself. Further complainant personally approached the opposite party for submitting claim form and requisite documents. As the opposite party was reluctant to accept the same, it was sent through registered post on 22/10/2009. Opposite party specifically denies the receipt of any such letter. But Ext.A6 go on to show that the same has been received by opposite party. Exhibit A6 is the copy of the registered letter dated 21/10/2009 with acknowledement due issued by the complainant to the opposite party stating that the fact of accident was already intimated to the opposite party by telephone and the repairs has effected from Sri Ayyappa Auto Garage. It is also stated that a Surveyor named Babu has inspected the vehicle. All the requisite documents for processing the claim is submitted along with the said letter is also stated. So the say of the opposite party that they have received the information only on 17/11/2009 turn out to be false.

The other contention is that the investigation conducted by opposite party revealed that immediately after the alleged accident, complainant shifted the vehicle to the workshop of his choice without intimating the opposite party and attempted to fabricate the damages by repairing the vehicle by using old parts and to claim damages for new parts. It is also stated that since the repairer was not willing for this fabrication, the complainant has shifted the vehicle to another workshop and conducted repairs.

It can be seen that apart from pleadings there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the above contention. Admittedly surveyor has been deputed and investigation

has been carried out. Had it been produced, it would have certainly thrown light to the

truth of the above contentions.

Further according to opposite party, the first information they received about the accident was vide letter dated 17/11/2009 and it is submitted that being a dutiful insurance company, they immediately appointed a Surveyor. But in Ext.A6 registered letter dated 21/10/2009 itself complainant has stated that Surveyor named Sri. Babu has already inspected the vehicle. So the say of opposite party that Surveyor was deputed after 17/11/2009 is also not believable.

The entire facts and circumstances and supporting evidence go on to show that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not settling the genuine claim of the complainant.

Complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.33,650/- being the charges for the spare parts and labour and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party has not produced the survey report assessing loss. Ext.A3 go on to show that an amount of Rs.14,900/- has been spent for spare parts and Ext.A4 shows that an amount of Rs.18,750/- was spent as labour charges. Hence the complainant is entitled for the same.

In view of the above discussions complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.33,650/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand six hundred and fifty only) with 12% interest from the date of filing of complaint till the date of order along with Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of August, 2010

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Date of filing: 07/12/2009

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Insurance policy

Ext.A2 – The certificate issued by Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakkenchery Police Station.

Ext.A3 – Invoice No.5805 dt.25/09/09 for Rs.13,230/-

Ext.A4 – Labour charge receipt dt.30/09/09 for Rs.18,750/-

Ext.A5 – Photo copy of motor claim form submitted by complainant

Ext.A6 – Copy of letter dt.21/10/09 sent by complainant to opposite party

Ext.A7 – copy of letter dt.12/11/09 sent by Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost (Allowed)

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings