IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.136/06 Between: The Secretary, Perunadu Grama Panchayat. (By Adv. K.P. Surendra Babu) ….. Complainant And: - The Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranni. - The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvalla. ….. Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting an amount of Rs.2,78,975/- as insurance claim with 18% interest along with cost and compensation from the opposite parties. 2. The complainant’s case is as follows:- The complainant is the Perunadu Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary and the 1st opposite party is the Branch Manager of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ranni and 2nd opposite party is the Divisional Manager of the said insurance company. A Mahindra Marshal Jeep bearing Reg. No.KL-3J/7222 owned by the complainant insured with the opposite party met with an accident on 6.10.2005 at 4.15 pm. In the said accident, one died and 4 persons injured. The vehicle also sustained heavy damages. Perunadu police registered a case for the said accident as Crime No.150/05. The accident was informed to the opposite party and as per the direction of the 1st opposite party, one insurance surveyor reached the spot and assessed the damages and thereafter the said jeep was taken to the workshop of T.V.S & Sons Ltd., Kottayam and they have prepared an estimate for Rs.1,93,975/- for replacing spare parts and Rs.85,000/- for the labour charges. The opposite parties are liable to pay the above said amount to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy as the vehicle had valid a policy at the time of accident. But the opposite parties has not given the above said amount or they have not given any direction to the T.V.S & Co. Ltd for repairing the vehicle irrespective of the complainant’s intimations. The above said acts of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service and hence this complaint. 3. The opposite parties filed a version with the following contentions:- The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer u/s. 2(d) r/w 2(m) of Consumer Protection Act. Opposite parties admitted the validity of the policy and admitted that they have received a claim form from the complainant. On receipt of the claim form, the opposite party deputed the surveyor to assess the loss and to ascertain the genuineness of the claim. The surveyor submitted his report and he assessed the net loss as Rs.1,11,587/-. But the complainant had not submitted the completion report of the repairs to the vehicle and not produced the final bills irrespective of the letter dated 15.5.2006. The surveyor also reported that the vehicle was well within the limits of repair basis settlement. Later the repairer informed that the party took the vehicle without any repair and without intimating the insurance company. Hence repair was not carried out and without any completion of repair, the complaint is premature. Moreover, the insurance cover was issued treating the vehicle as a private car. On verifying the R.C particulars, it is found that the vehicle is operated as a transport vehicle. But the complainant did not care to render proper reply for the same despite reminder dated 28.5.2006. Thus the opposite party has acted within the precincts of law and hence there is no deficiency of service from their part. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief & Costs? 5. The evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the oral evidence of one witness for the complainant and the documents produced by the complainant. On the basis of the proof affidavit of the complainant, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A10 and the witness produced by the complainant was examined as PW2. For the opposite parties, the authorized representative of the opposite party, the Asst. Divisional Manager of the opposite party filed a proof affidavit and he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. Witness was cross examined. After closure of evidence, both sides heard. 6. Point No.1:- In this case the complainant had availed the service of the opposite party by paying money and the dispute between the parties is with regard to the deficiency of service from the opposite party. So the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the dispute is a consumer dispute. In the circumstances, we hold that this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. 7. Point No.2 & 3:- The complainant’s case is that the vehicle owned by the complainant met with an accident and the said vehicle sustained heavy damages. The vehicle is insured with the opposite party and at the time of accident the policy is in force. The matter was intimated to the opposite party and the vehicle was taken to M/s. T.V.S & Sons, Kottayam as per the instructions of the opposite party where the total cost of repairs is estimated for Rs.2,78,975/- including spare parts and labour charges. But the opposite parties have not given the said amount or they have not made any arrangements with M/s. T.V.S & Sons for the repairs of the vehicle. Thereafter M/s. T.V.S & Co. insisted the complainant to remove the vehicle from their workshop. Accordingly, the complainant had taken the vehicle from the workshop to the complainant’s compound at Perunadu. The non-arrangement of the repairs and the non-payment of the insurance claim amount by the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service which caused mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get insurance claim amount of Rs.2,78,975/- with its interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with compensation and cost. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had submitted a proof affidavit narrating his case along with 10 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. One witness was also examined for the complainant as PW2. 9. At the same time, the opposite party’s contention is that their surveyor had assessed the net loss is Rs.1,11,587/- and directed the complainant to produce the final bill after completion of the repairs. But the complainant instead of carrying out the repairs, taken the vehicle from the repairer without notice to the opposite party. According to the opposite parties, they cannot reimburse any amount without the completion report of repairs of the damaged vehicle and the production of final bills. In this case, the complainant has not acted accordingly and hence they are not liable to the complainant. 10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite party, the Addl. General Manager of the opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. ` 11. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have perused the materials on record. The materials on record shows that the parties have no dispute regarding the genuineness of the accident, the damages caused to the vehicle and the validity of the policy. The dispute is with regard to the quantum of the damages sustained to the vehicle and the manner in which the vehicle has to be repaired. According to the complainant, the opposite party has not given any direction to the repairer for repairing the damaged vehicle. So the repairer had not repaired the vehicle and later the repairer insisted the complainant to remove the vehicle from the workshop and they are compelled to remove the vehicle from the workshop and the vehicle is presently kept at the compound of the complainant without repairing the vehicle. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant’s vehicle was not repaired so far and thereby the complainant lost their vehicle and they have suffered much due to the non-availability of a vehicle. According to the opposite parties, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant has to repair the vehicle and on getting the completion report and the final bill, they will settle the account as per their norms. But in this case, the complainant never submitted the completion report or the final bills. So they have not settle the account and hence they are not responsible or liable to the complainant. 12. On going through the deposition of PW2, the Manager of T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons, Kottayam, it is seen that the usual procedure in such cases is that after completing the legal formalities and the submission of the work estimate by the authorised repairer, the insurance company will negotiate with the repairer and give direction to the repairer for carrying out the repairs. But in this case, so far, the insurance company has not contacted the repairer or given any direction for carrying out the repair. So they are compelled to remove the damaged vehicle from their premises. Accordingly, they have given instructions to the complainant who took the vehicle from the custody of the repairer. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW2 in chief examination is as follows:- “Insurance claim DÅ hml\§repair sN¿p¶Xn\p ap¼v Insurance Company.pw R§fpw X½n ]WnIkw_¨v Hcp agreement ([mcW) DmIpw. A{]Imcw DmIp¶ [mcW{]ImcamWv work start sN¿p¶Xv. Cu hml\¯nsâ repair kw_¨v Insurance Companyn \n¶pw \mfnXphsc bmsXmcp \n±ihpw e`n¨ncp¶nÃ. AXn\memWv lnI£nbpsS hml\w repair sNbvXv \ÂImXncp¶Xv. R§fpw Insurance Companypambn Hcp [mcWbnepw F¯nbncp¶nÃ. Repair rate kw_¨pÅ dispute ImcWamWv taÂ{]ImcapÅ [mcW DmImXncp¶Xv. R§X¿mdm¡nb estimate (Ext.A6) reasonable BWv“. 13. From the above deposition, it is very clear that the opposite parties have not taken any initiative for the repairing. As per Ext.A6 estimate prepared by the repairer, the total cost of repair is Rs.2,78,975/- including the cost of spare parts and labour charges. But according to the opposite parties, the net assessed loss is only Rs.1,11,587/-. But the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to substantiate the above said assessment. Ext.A5 survey report prepared by the authorised surveyor of the opposite parties does not shows any amount required for the repairs. Authorised surveyor was also not brought before the Forum. So Ext.A5 cannot be considered. So the only piece of evidence available with us at this stage in connection with the loss and damages sustained to the complainant’s vehicle is Ext.A6 estimate. The opposite parties have not raised any objection against Ext.A6 estimate. The only contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not repaired the vehicle or submitted the completion report or the final bills of the repairs. At the same time, the complainant and the repairer contended that the opposite parties have not given work order either to the complainant or to the repairer for carrying out the repairs of the vehicle. The above said contention was also supported by PW2. 14. On a perusal of the entire evidence, nothing on record shows that the opposite parties have given the work order either to the complainant or to the repairer for carrying out the repairs of the vehicle at the relevant time or they have not done anything for negotiating for settling the repairing charges with the repairer or with the complainant. If they have given the work order at the relevant time, the repairer had carried out the repairs and if so the complainant has not been put to such a situation. In this connection, the following portion of the deposition of DW1 is relevant which is as follows:- “hml\w dn¸bsN¿p¶Xn\pthn TVSv R§work order sImSp¯n«nÓ. Since, the complainant is a public institution, they cannot act as a private individual. Ext.B3 letter also lacks a bonafide intention for a settlement. So the act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency of service, which resulted heavy loss to the complainant. In the circumstances, the complaint is allowable and the complainant is entitled for their loss and sufferings. 15. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the complainant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.2,78,975/-/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy eight thousand nine hundred and seventy five only) from the opposite parties with 9% interest per annum from the date of this petition till this date. The complainant is also allowed to realise an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation along with a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amounts within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the interest of the whole amount will have to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from today. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 2nd day of December, 2009. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Samuel. S. Thomas PW2 : K.G. Ashok kumar Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of the Certificate of Registration dated 14.10.2003. A1(a) : Relevant portion of Ext.A1. A2 : Photocopy of the tax receipt (Form A). A3 : Policy Certificate. A4 : Photocopy of the First Information Report. A5 : Loss Assessment Details dated 19.12.2005 prepared by V.N.S. Pillai, S.P. Engineers & Surveyors, Kottayam. A6 : Estimate dated 10.12.2005 prepared by T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Kottayam. A7 : Carbon copy of the letter dated 20.10.2005 issued by the complainant to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kottayam. A8 : Carbon copy of the letter dated 19.12.2005 issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. A9 : Certificate dated 9.1.2006 issued by the Asst. Exe. Engineer, PWD Mechanical Sub Division, Mavelikkara to the complainant. A10 : Letter dated 28.5.2006 issued 1st opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : K. Sunil kumar Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Motor Survey Report dated 17.4.2006 in respect of vehicle No.KL.03/J-7222 prepared by V.N.S. Pillai, s.P. Engineers & Surveyors, Kottayam. B2 : Copy of the letter dated 15.5.2006 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. B3 : Letter dated 28.5.2006 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) The Secretary, Perunadu Grama Panchayat, Perunadu. (2) The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranni. (3) The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvalla. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
