CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
K.N Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 28/2010
Saturday, the 29th day of January, 2011
Petitioner : Alex Kuruvilla,
Peringattu House,
Thellakom P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Jobin Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite party : The oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Trio Chambers,
Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam
reptd. by its Divisional Manager.
(By Adv. Sajan A Varghese)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 10..02..2010 , is as follows:
Petitioner as an owner of a Hundai Santro Car bearing registration No. KL 5-3646. The said vehicle was validly insured with opposite party company. The vehicle was insured for a period from 15..7..2007 to 14..7..2008. On 19..4..2008 at about 5.30 P.M the above said vehicle met with an accident at Thellakom while it was driven by Tomy K. James a relative of the petitioner. Said vehicle was hit at the boundary wall of the driver’s house and sustained damages to the front portion of the vehicle. After the accident matter was intimated to the opposite party. Opposite party inspected the vehicle after inspection vehicle was repaired at Peediackal Automobile, Amalagiri . An amount of Rs. 16,940/- was expended for the repair works. On 23..4..2008 complainant forwarded necessary document with regard to insurance claim to the opposite party. On 5..5..2008 insurance surveyor issued
a letter to the petitioner but so far opposite party has not redressed the grievance of the petitioner. Act of the opposite party according to the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. So the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 16,940/- with interest at the rate of 18% from 23..4..2008 till realization. Petitioner claims Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation, and Rs. 20,000/- as punitive damage and cost of the proceedings.
-2-
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party complainant is not the registered owner of the car . It was sold to Tomy K. James who was
driving the car at the time of sustaining the damages. On enquiry by the opposite party they had not seen any evidence of hit on the compound wall as alleged. Damages of the car do not tally with the cause alleged. As per the terms and conditions of the policy petitioner had no interest or control over the vehicle or else have no insurable interest over the car. All provisions of law and the relevant regulations of the IRDA and other laws has been properly considered by opposite party and find no deficiency in service on their part. They pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents.
Point No. 1
Admittedly claim of the petitioner is so far not processed. As per Reg. 9 (5) of IRDA (protection of policy holders interests) Regulation 2002. On receipt of the survey report or additional survey report an insured shall within 30 days offer a settlement. In case of delay as per Reg. 9 (6) insurer is liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2% above the bank rate prevalent to the insured. The reason stated by the opposite party in not processing the claim of the petitioner is that there is failure on the part of the complainant to comply the terms and conditions of the policy and the petitioner had no insurable interest over the car. There was no evidence of any hit on compound wall, as an alleged by the petitioner. Damages of the car do not tally with causes alleged. In our view the opposite party has not produced any cogent evidence to prove that registered owner of the car is not the petitioner. Further more the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that the damages found on the compound wall does not tally with extent of damage on the car. In our view act of the opposite party in not processing the claim of
-3-
the petitioner on flimsy grounds in violation of IRDA regulation amounts to clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, Petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 16,940/- with 12% interest from the date of the filing of the petition till realization. Opposite party is ordered to pay an
amount of Rs. 2000/- was litigation costs to the petitioner. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this 29th day of January, 2011
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of the claim form.
Ext. A2: Copy of the survey report Dtd: 5..5..2008
Documents for the Opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
