DATE OF FILING :07.01.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.263/2010

Between

Complainant : Sence Kurian,

Orappankal House,

Kattappana P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: K.Pradeepkumar)

2. The Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Kottayam.

(By Adv: K.Pradeepkumar)

3. Peediakkal Auto Mobiles,

Amalagiri P.O,

Kottayam.

4. Kishore.P.P,

Puthenpurayil House,

Kattappana P.O, Kattappana,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant is the registered owner of an Ambulance bearing Reg.No.KL-6D-7004. The vehicle was duly insured with the Ist opposite party. On 9.08.2009 at about 6 a.m, the vehicle was met with an accident and it was entrusted with the 3^rd opposite party for repair. The 3^rd opposite party prepared an estimate and done the repair. On 4.11.2009 the vehicle was repaired and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.46,150/-. The complainant remitted the amount and received the vehicle after repair. The 3^rd opposite party moved all papers for the insurance claim. On 20.03.2010 the 2^nd opposite party issued a voucher for Rs.11,220/- as full and final settlement of the claim. When the complainant enquired about the reason for the reduction of the claim amount, the complainant could understand that the 3^rd opposite party initially supplied an estimate for an amount of Rs.20,000/-, the expected cost for the repair of the vehicle. Subsequent to that without any notice to the complainant or without revising the estimate, the 3^rd opposite party charged Rs.46,150/- as repair charges. The opposite party has to give notice to the Ist opposite party about the increase in the estimate and upon the notice, the Ist opposite party has to resurvey the vehicle with the surveyor. That was not done in this case. The 3^rd opposite party did not give notice to the complainant and also to the insurance company about the increase in the estimate. The charging of exorbitant amount without any notice to the complainant is a deficiency in service of the 3^rd opposite party and hence the complainant is not liable to pay the same. The 3^rd opposite party is liable to pay the amount. So this petition is filed for getting back Rs.46,150/- from the opposite parties.

2. As per the written version filed by the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties, the insurance of the vehicle and accident are not disputed. Immediately on receipt of the claim, the opposite party deputed an independent surveyor Mr.K.J.Philip to assess the loss sustained to the vehicle. The surveyor conducted the survey on 25.08.2009 and on 29.08.2009 filed a report assessing the net loss as Rs.13,925/-. From the above figure, half percent of the insured declared value ie, Rs.2,700/- in this case, and salvage value has to be deducted as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. So after deducting the same the opposite party sent a voucher to the complainant for Rs.11,220/- on 2.12.2009. But the complainant did not return the same stamped so far, without which the opposite party is not in a position to hand over the cheque due to the petitioner as per the contract of insurance. On receipt of the same the opposite party is ready to hand over the cheque for Rs.11,220/- to the complainant. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
 

3. Opposite parties 3 and 4 are exparte.
 

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

5. No oral evidence adduced by both parties. Heard. Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant.
 

6.The POINT :- The complainant produced Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule of the vehicle, which is marked as Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1, the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-06D-7004, Tempo Traveller having insurance policy coverage from 23.01.2009 to Midnight of 22.01.2010 and the name of the insured is Mr.Sence Kurian, the complainant. According to the complainant, the vehicle met with accident on 9.08.2009 at about 6 a.m so it was entrusted to the 3^rd opposite party for repair, they prepared an estimate and done the repair. On 4.11.2009 the complainant was asked to pay Rs.46,150/- as repairing cost of the vehicle. The complainant remitted the amount and took delivery of the vehicle. On 20.03.2010, the 2^nd opposite party issued a voucher for Rs.11,220/- which is the full and final settlement of the claim. When enquired about the same, it was revealed that the 3^rd opposite party initially gave an estimate for Rs.20,000/- as the expected cost for repair. Without giving any notice to the complainant or without revising the estimate the 3^rd opposite party charged Rs.46,150/- from the complainant as cost of the repair. The 3^rd opposite party ought to have given notice to the Ist opposite party and must increase the estimate amount and upon that notice the Ist opposite party has to resurvey the vehicle with the surveyor. As per opposite parties 1 and 2, immediately on receipt of the claim they deputed an independent surveyor to assess the loss and the surveyor, Mr.K.J.Philip conducted the survey on 25.08.2009 and 29.08.2009 and filed a report assessing the net loss as Rs.13,925/-. From the above figure half percent of the insured declared value, that is Rs.2,700/- in this case, and salvage value has deducted as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. So after deducting the same, the opposite party sent a voucher for Rs.11,220/- on 2.12.2009. The Motor Survey Report prepared by the Said K.J.Philip was also produced by the complainant and is marked as Ext.P2. In Ext.P2, the total amount for the repair of the vehicle is Rs.12,500/- after deducting the salvage value. The opposite party is ready to hand over cheque for Rs.11,220/- but the complainant is not willing to receive the same. As per the complainant the 3^rd opposite party produced an estimate of Rs.20,000/- as expected cost for the repair of the vehicle. But that estimate is not all produced by the complainant before the Forum. Copy of an estimate produced by the complainant, eventhough it is not marked, which is an estimate given by the 3^rd opposite party dated 11.08.2009 for the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-06D-7004 and the grant total amount for repair is Rs.45,330/-. So on 11.08.2009 itself an estimate was given by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant for an amount of Rs.45,330/-. No other documents produced by the complainant to show that he paid an amount of Rs.46,150/- to the 3^rd opposite party for repair of the vehicle. In the estimate given by the 3^rd opposite party on 11.08.2009 itself, it is written that Rs.45,330/- is needed for the repair of the vehicle. Immediately on receipt of the claim the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties deputed an independent surveyor to assess the loss and a report was filed by the said surveyor as Ext.P2(series). The same is produced by the complainant himself. It is the duty of the complainant to file stamped signed voucher for getting the insurance amount and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are ready to pay that amount. So there is no deficiency is seen proved by the complainant against the opposite parties.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of April, 2011

Sd/-
 

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/- 

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-
 

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule

Ext.P2 - Motor Survey Report

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil