D.O.F:10/01/2019
D.O.O:20/07/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.04/2019
Dated this, the 20th day of July 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Hamza.M.M, aged, aged 58 years,
S/o Abdullakunhi,
M.M. House, Melparamba,
Post : Kalanad, Kasaragod, 671317 : Complainant
(Adv: K. Kumaran Nair & Sabari.L.S)
And
1. The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Tiger Hills, Kasaragod
Kasaragod Taluk and District – 671121
2. Mr. K. Hareesh Kumar,
Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Tiger Hills, Kasaragod
Kasaragod Taluk and District – 671121
(Adv: C. Damodaran)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint filed through his power of attorney holder.
2. The case of the complainant in short is that he is the R.C Owner of the car KL – 14 Q 847. It is insured with Opposite Party No:1company. The vehicle met with an accident surveyor inspected the vehicle and reported it as total loss. IDV of the vehicle is Rs. 5,60,000/- surveyor quoted as Rs. 3,20,000/- for the wreckage and salvage loss of Rs. 2,39,000/-.. The Opposite Party came forward to pay only Rs.2,39,000/- complainant tried for settlement of claim but in vain due to refusal by Opposite Party which is against law.
3. The vehicle is covered by loan and installments are pressed. The complainant suffered financial loss. It is due to deficiency in service negligence complainant seeks reliefs for payment of Rs.5,59,000/- as compensation for total loss. Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation and cost of the litigation.
4. The Opposite Party appeared through counsel and filed their written version. The Opposite Party admitted the policy and coverage. As per the version of Opposite Party they undertake to pay only salvage value of Rs. 2,39,000/- in the mean while complainant filed IA 04/2019 to direct Opposite Party No:1 to take possession of wreckage then kept at service station. It was allowed. Against which Opposite Party filed revision petition 12/2019 before Honourable State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission. The state commission dismissed the petition as per order dated 06/12/2019.
5. The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1. Ext A1 to A9 documents marked. They are A1 survey report, Ext A2 insurance, Ext A3 is the lawyer notice, Ext A4 is copy of notice , Ext A5 is reply notice issued the Opposite party, reply to notice is Ext A6, Ext A7 is the copy of the notice, Copy of complaint is Ext A8 and letter claiming floor rent is marked as Ext A9.
The Opposite Party produced Ext B1 to B4 documents. Ext B1 is the insurance policy , Ext A2 is the final report by surveyor, Ext B3 is the copy of letter addressed to Opposite Party. And Ext B4 is the copy of reply to Ext B3. Opposite Party was cross examined as Dw1.
6. In view of the contest, following issues arise for consideration in this case.
a) Whether complainant is entitled to the claim of Rs. 5,59,000/- towards insurance claim of total loss?
b) Whether, there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party. And whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
According to the Opposite Party company they have paid Rs. 2, 39,000/- complainant insist for total loss to Rs. 5,59,000/-. The dispute is limited to the extent whether complainant is entitled to claim total loss of the vehicle. No doubt insurance company is the owner of wreckage. Fact remains that complainant is the owner of the vehicle. Vehicle sustained serious damage due to accident. It was covered by insurance and it is a total loss. Complainant is thus entitled to value of the vehicle accessed by the surveyor namely Rs. 5,59,000/- The wreckage is the properly of the insurance company. So the insurance company is liable to pay Rs. 3,20,000/- being the balance amount payable. Refusal of liability to cover total loss and settle the issue of total loss despite report by surveyor amounts to serious deficiency in service and negligence. The Opposite Party filed IA 5/2020 for a direction to complainant to transfer the R.C and surrender the wreckage. It is already held that wreckage of the property of insurance and duty bound to safeguard and it is a total loss, the relief claimed for in the interim application is rejected.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- towards the balance insurance payable. The Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation for the deficiency in service. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, commission finds that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) is found reasonable amount as compensation and to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Motor final survey report
A2- Letter issued by the OP to the R.C. owner of insured vehicle Dt: 14/03/2018
A3- Copy of notice Dt: 20/03/2018
A4- Lawyers Notice
A5- Reply notice issued by OP
A6- Office copy of the representation Dt:05/07/2018
A7- Copy of the notice Dt: 26/07/2018
A8- Policy holder complaints registration form.
A9- Lawyers notice.
B1- Copy of the policy
B2- Motor Final survey report
B3- Copy of reply to Ext B3
Witness Examined
Pw1- Hamza. M.M
Dw1- Harish Kumar
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
