DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD Dated this the 28th day of February 2020 Present : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member (President I/c) : Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 23/11/2017 CC No.171/2017 Ashok Kumar Kunnakkad House, Vanoor, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad. (By Advs.K.Dhananjayan & Rohith Krishnadas) Vs The Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd., N.S. Tower, Stadium Bus Stand, Palakkad - 678 013 (By Adv.C.Balachandran) O R D E R By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member (President I/c) Brief facts of the complaint are stated below: The complainant is the owner of the car with registration number KL-49-D-0470. On 29/11/2015 the complainant was travelling from Palakkad to Alathur by this car and when it reached Chithaly bridge a car coming from the back of the complainant’s car collided on the back of the complainant’s car and the backside of the complainant’s car was damaged. But the car which collided with the complainant’s car did not stop and went away; the registration number of that vehicle could not be noted but the complainant’s vehicle stopped on the spot of the incident. On 30/11/2015 the insurance company authorities who insured complainant’s vehicle was informed by phone and insurance authorities asked the complainant to take the subject vehicle to authorised workshop for repairs namely TATA Motors, Thrissur’s Authorised workshop, HYSON Motor, for repairing the vehicle on 30/11/2015 itself. At that time the insurance company surveyor (Mr.Babu P.Pappachan) came and assessed the vehicle’s damages and afterwards the complainant’s vehicle was repaired by replacing the damaged parts. For changing the above vehicle’s damaged parts Rs.13,000/-, for finishing the repair work of the vehicle Rs.8,000/-, for replacing of parts Rs.45,400/-, for painting of the vehicle Rs.33,000/-, thus totaling Rs.99,400/- was incurred; therefore, by way of labour charges Rs.28,396/-, by way of tax invoice Rs.15,334/-, thus totaling Rs.43,730/- was the expenditure incurred by the complainant who paid the total amount to the workshop of M/s Hyson Motors which is the authorised workshop of TATA motors. According to the complainant, since the above vehicle (KL-49-D-0470) is insured with the opposite party for repairing the vehicle amount spent above is liable to be given by the opposite party to the complainant. The above vehicle is insured on 26/11/2015 with the opposite party and the period of the insurance policy of the said vehicle is from 26/11/2015 to 25/11/2016 and the vehicle got damaged due to accident on 29/11/2015 and complainant’s policy number is 76110531150100005078. But as per the reply given on 14/03/2016 from the opposite party, the damages occurred to the complainant’s vehicle did not occur in the policy period of 26/11/2015 to 25/11/2016 and occurred before that period, as reported by the surveyor Mr.Babu.P.Pappachan. Hence complainant’s claim was closed and the opposite party’s counsel sent a reply dated.09/05/2016 to the complainant in which it is mentioned that damages to the vehicle did not occur during the insurance period. The bills and other documents relating to repair of the vehicle due to accident were submitted to the opposite party through Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur along with complaint stating true facts. But the above Forum mentioned the policy number of complainant’s vehicle wrongly; in the letter dated.14/03/2016 sent by the opposite party to the complainant and in the notice dated.09/05/2016 sent through counsel the facts mentioned are wholly false and untrue, the car (with registration number KL-49-D-0470) was insured with the opposite party insurance company on 26/11/2015 with its policy number 76110531150100005078. At the time of insuring the vehicle agent and officials of the opposite party insured the vehicle after being convinced about no damages occurred to the vehicle and the vehicle was in good condition, the mileage and body of the vehicle was checked. If any damages had occurred to the vehicle, only after noticing the same insurance policy for the vehicle will be issued. But the opposite party intentionally concealing the true facts of the complainant’s vehicle repair charges amount was not allowed as per the report thereby denying the complainant’s right to get the due amount from the opposite party. Complainant pleads that the vehicle owned by the complainant was insured with the opposite party insurance company as per policy number mentioned above, the vehicle, at the time of occurring damages due to accident to the vehicle, since it had got full insurance and hence the amount spent on repairing the complainant’s vehicle of Rs.43.730/- was remitted in cash to Hyson Motor’s, workshop. The amount paid by the complainant is liable to be given fully by the opposite party which complainant is entitled to get. The opposite party is liable to give Rs.43,730/- which is the amount of repair charge of the complainant’s vehicle paid in cash to Hyson motors workshop along with 9% interest from 27/01/2016 to date. Because of the irresponsible acts of the opposite party the complainant is put to a lot of difficulties, losses and mental agony for which Rs.50,000/- is to be allowed by the opposite party. Hence the complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum for an order to the opposite parties to allow Rs.43,730/- spent by the complainant and 9% interest thereon from 27/01/2016 to 27/10/2017 and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant. The complaint was admitted and notice was sent to the opposite party to enter their appearance and file their version. In the version filed by the opposite party, the opposite party denies all the allegations and claims made by the complainant in his complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Allegations in Para 1 of the complaint are denied by the opposite party. No such accident as alleged in the complaint had happened on 29/11/2015. The alleged accident was not reported to the police and there are no police reports like FIR, charge sheet, scene mahassar, AMVI report to prove that the alleged accident has taken place. The accident is alleged to have happened at Chithaly within the limits of Coyalmannam police station which is very near to the alleged accident spot, which is around 1.5 kilometers from the alleged accident spot. No explanation is given in the complaint for not lodging a complaint to the police. The opposite party also contends that claims cannot be settled without police record, even if it is a hit and run case or a properly damaged case. It is suspected that the allegation of hit and run stated in the complaint is only a false story fabricated for the purpose of the case to get compensation from the opposite party company. The company was not informed about the accident immediately after the alleged accident. According to this opposite party the insurance company was informed only on 02/12/2015 after three days delay. The allegation in the notice sent by the Secretary of the Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur on behalf of the complainant that the alleged incident was reported to the company on 29/11/2015 is false as the said day was Sunday which is a holiday for the insurance company. In para 1 of the complaint it is stated that the complainant was driving the car at the time of alleged accident; as per the claim intimation given by the complainant to the insurance company one Mrs.Bindu was driving the car at the time of alleged accident which are contradictory to each other. Mrs.Bindu did not have a valid driving licence to drive a car. As per section 3 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act driving offence can be charged against her because in this case driving of the vehicle is done by an unlicensed person. According to this opposite party this might be the reason for not reporting the matter to the police. The company immediately on receiving claim intimation deputed the surveyor (loss assessor), Mr.Babu.P.Pappachan to inspect the car and assess the alleged damage. After a detailed inspection he remarked that he found no fresh damages on the vehicle and the damages seen on the vehicle appeared to be of quite old; the odo meter was not working at the time of his inspection. Normally odo meter will not be damaged by near hit from behind. The insurance company accepted his report, as the surveyor is an expert in assessing vehicle damages. This opposite party contends that there is no deficiency in service on its part; if any damages have been sustained to the vehicle before the policy period, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the same. Hence the opposite party insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant which is also intimated to the complainant. The Secretary of Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur was also intimated. This opposite party also contends that the amounts claimed for the alleged repairs, labour charges, tax invoice all are exaggerated figures without any basis. Odo meter was not working even prior to the alleged accident, but charges for replacing the odo meter are also included in the claim submitted by the complainant to the opposite party insurance company. This opposite party is not liable to pay the amount to the complainant; this opposite party agrees that the subject car was having insurance coverage with the opposite party for the period from 26/11/2015 to 25/11/2016, but the liability of the company is subject to the terms and condition of the policy. The complainant had insured the disputed car since 2013, but he omitted to renew the policy in time in 2015. Period of coverage of the previous policy was from 18/07/2014 to 17/07/2015, but after its expiry the policy was renewed only from 26/11/2015 to 25/11/2016 after a gap of over four months, but no explanation is provided by the complainant for the break in renewal of the policy. Delay of the complainant in renewing the policy in time can only be viewed with great suspicion and which made the opposite party deny the occurrence of the alleged accident on 29/11/2015. According to this opposite party the alleged damages to the car were incurred much prior to that date as per the surveyor’s report. The damages alleged to have been sustained to the vehicle are not visible from outside. Hence this opposite party contends that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. This opposite party also denies the allegations in paras 5, 6 & 7 of the complaint as false. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.43,730/- with 9% interest from the opposite party. He is also not entitled to get Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for the alleged mental agony suffered by the complainant. On the other hand the complainant is liable to pay compensatory cost to the opposite party for filing this frivolous complaint. Hence this opposite party prays that complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party further prays that the opposite party’s contentions should be upheld and complaint should be dismissed with compensatory cost. Complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavits; Exts.A1 to A7 were marked from the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked from the side of opposite party. Opposite party also filed additional affidavit. Survey report (final) was filed and marked as Ext.B4. Both parties were heard. The following issues were considered in this case. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party? 2. If so, the relief and cost available to the complainant? Issues 1 & 2 in detail Complainant has filed Exts.A1 to A7 to prove his arguments. Ext.A1 is a copy of the certificate of registration which shows the particulars of the disputed transport vehicle. Ext.A2 is the attested copy of the policy schedule cum certificate of insurance of private car package policy of the complainant which shows policy number, period of insurance as from 26/11/2015 to 25/11/2016, registration number of the insured vehicle, insured’s name, premium amount, liability on compulsory PA cover for owner’s driver, LL cover for paid driver. Ext.A3 is a copy of the letter sent by Secretary, Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur to the opposite party demanding the opposite party to give the claim amount within fifteen days of the receipt of this letter. Ext.A4 is original claim repudiation letter sent by Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd, Alathur branch office which states that the policy is issued to cover complainant’s vehicle for a period from 26/11/2015 to 25/11/2016 and the opposite party is not liable to compensate the damages happened to the subject vehicle before the policy period. The Ext.B4 survey report clearly states that after his detailed inspection the surveyor has reported that he found no fresh damages connected with the accident and the damages seen on the vehicle appear to be of quite old. Ext.A6 is original invoice dated.27/01/2016 which shows Rs.28,396/- have been spent by the complainant for labour and accident repair plus service tax collected, issued by Hyson Motors Pvt, Ltd, Thrissur. Ext.A7 is original tax invoice issued by Hyson Motors Pvt Ltd (Service), Thrissur for Rs.15,334/- incurred by the complainant. The opposite party has filed Ext.B1 to B4 to prove their contentions. Ext.B1 is motor accident claim intimation dated.02/12/2015 given by the complainant to inform the opposite party about the occurrence of accident to his disputed vehicle which also shows policy number of the vehicle and its insurance period, name of the driver as Mrs.Bindu.S , time of accident etc. Ext.B2 is a true copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance private car package policy taken by the complainant for the disputed vehicle. Ext.B4 is the motor (final) survey report submitted by the opposite party insurance company surveyor, Mr.Babu.P.Pappachan which shows complainant’s policy number, period of insurance, name and address of insurer and the insured, vehicle particulars, drivers particulars, particulars of accident and survey details of damages and assessment and remarks of the surveyor, which states that “on examination of the above vehicle I found no fresh damages. The damages seen on the vehicle appear to be of quite old,” place of accident, and that the accident has not been reported to the police. We have closely examined the affidavits and documentary evidences filed by both parties before this Forum; it is clear from the policy schedule cum certificate of insurance that the policy is private car package policy taken by the complainant to cover his vehicle with registration no.KL-49 D-0470. We also observe that the alleged accident occurred on 29/11/2015, but it was seen reported to the opposite party insurance company by the complainant only on 02/12/2015 after three days of the occurrence of the accident, which shows deficiency on the part of the complainant of not reporting the accident immediately to the insurance company; we also observe that the accident was not seen reported to the police authorities which is also clear from Motor Accident Claim Intimation dated.02.12.2015 sent by the complainant to the opposite party insurance company and motor (final) survey report number : 160555/NIA dated.08.03.2016. Which shows another grave deficiency on the part of the complainant. We also find that complainant is not seen to have produced copies of the FIR, scene mahassar, AMVI report, charge sheet, copy of police complaint, GD number etc before this Forum. Most significantly we view the remarks of the insurance company surveyor Mr.Babu.P.Pappachan in his survey report produced before this Forum that ”on examination of the above vehicle I found no fresh damages. The damages seen on the vehicle appear to be of quite old”. Which proves that the alleged damages occurred to the vehicle were quite old. We also find that the first policy period of the complainant’s vehicle is from 18.07.2014 to 17.07.2015 and after the expiry of this policy, the policy was not renewed in time but it was renewed only from 26.11.15 to 25.11.16 which shows that there occurred a long gap of more than four months for renewing the policy. Which is also observed as a grave deficiency on the part of the complainant. We also find that the odo meter of the disputed vehicle was not working at the time of his inspection by the insurance company surveyor; normally the odo meter will not get damaged by mere hit from behind as in this case. Finally we view that the complainant is not seem to have taken any steps to examine the opposite party insurance company officials or the insurance company surveyor Mr.Babu.P.Pappachan to clarify any points. Considering all the above we view that the complainant has not been able to prove that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have been committed by the opposite party insurance company in this case. The result is that complaint is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2020. Sd/- V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member (President I/c) Sd/- Vidya.A Member Appendix Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 - Copy of the certificate of registration which shows the particulars of the disputed transport vehicle. Ext.A2- Attested copy of the policy schedule cum certificate of insurance of private car package policy of the complainant which shows policy number, period of insurance as from 26/11/2015 to 25/11/2016 registration number of the insured vehicle, insured’s name, premium amount, liability on compulsory PA cover for owners driver, LL cover for paid driver Ext.A3- Copy of the registered letter with acknowledgment card sent by Secretary, Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur to the opposite party demanding the opposite party to give the claim amount within fifteen days of the receipt of this letter Ext.A4 - Original claim repudiation letter sent by Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd, Alathur branch office which states that the policy is issued to cover complainant’s vehicle for the period from 26/11/2015 to 25/11/2016 and the opposite party is not liable to compensate the damages happened to the subject vehicle before the policy period as per the surveyors report Ext.A5 - A copy of the reply letter sent by the counsel of opposite party to the Secretary, Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur Ext.A6 - Original invoice dated.27/01/2016 which shows Rs.28,396/- for labour for accident repair plus service tax collected, issued by Hyson Motors Pvt, Ltd, Thrissur to the complainant Ext.A7 - Original tax invoice issued by Hyson Auto Sales Pv t, Ltd, Thrissur for Rs.15,334/- to the complainant. Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party Ext.B1 - Motor accident claim intimation given by the complainant dated.02/12/2015 to inform the opposite party about the occurrence of accident to the disputed vehicle which also shows policy number of the vehicle and its insurance period, which also shows name of the driver and time of the accident Ext.B2 - True copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance of private car package policy taken by the complainant for his disputed vehicle Ext.B3 - True copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance of private car package policys taken by the complainant for his disputed vehicle Ext.B4 - Motor (final) survey report submitted by the opposite party insurance company surveyor, Mr.Babu.P.Pappachan Witness examined on the side of complainant NIL Witness examined on the side of opposite party NIL Cost : Nil