CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

 Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                      Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.57/11

Wednesday the 20^th   day of June, 2012.

 

Petitioner                                              : Tittu Thomas,

                                                               Kuzhiyadithara House,

                                                               Pariyaram PO,

                                                               Puthuppally, Kottayam.

                                                             (Adv. George Emmanuel Podipara)

                                                          Vs.

Opposite parties                                   : The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

                                                                Divisional Office No.1,

                                                                PB No.166, 3^rd Floor,

                                                                 Matteethra Building,

                                                                 M.C.Road, Baker Junction,

                                                                 Kottayam-1 Rep.by its

                                                                 Divisional Manager, Kottayam.       

                                                                 (Adv. Sajan A.Varghese)

 

 

            Case of the petitioner filed ,on 07/3/11, is as follows.

 

            Petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruti Swift 2008 model vehicle. Petitioner insured his vehicle with respondent. Policy issued is valid for a period from 11/2/10 to 10/2/11. During the policy period on 8/8/10 petitioner’s vehicle met with an accident, at Banglore, petitioner preferred claim to opposite party.. Opposite party deputed a surveyor. Surveyor assessed damage for Rs.90959/-. The total repair works done by the petitioner including spare parts, labour charges, painting and service charges will come to Rs.1,25,865. On 27/01/11 due to non-process of claim petitioner issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party for settlement of the claim. Opposite party received the notice so far not replied. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in not settling the claim amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this petition.

            Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that complaint is not maintainable. According to opposite party accident alleged to have been occurred at Bangalore. Claim was duly processed by opposite party and the matter was communicated to the petitioner on 28/12/10 by opposite party. Petitioner was requested to produce a GD entry or FIR. It was informed to petitioner that without any police records claim cannot be processed. Opposite party informed the petitioner that petitioner shall produce an indemnity letter, duly notarized and produced the same to opposite party. According to opposite party there is no deficiency of service on their part and they pray for dismissal of petition with their costs.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext.A1 to A9 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 document on the side of opposite party.

            Crux of the case of petitioner is that opposite party has not processed the genuine claim of petitioner. According to opposite party petitioner has not complied the mandatory demands, including production of letter of indemnity, and police reports. In our view since claim is with regard to own damage accident opposite party cannot insist petitioner for production police repots. Admittedly there is valid coverage for the vehicle at the time of accident. Policy issued by opposite party is produced and is marked as Ext.A3. The report of surveyor is produced and the same is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.A5 is the bill and invoice given by ‘Viswas car service’, an authorised service centre of maruthi vehicle, at Bangalore. Admittedly accident was intimated to the opposite party. In last portion of Ext.B1 report the surveyor submitted that he inspected the vehicle after completion of all works at Viswas car service centre. Repairer has replaced and repaired all the parts as allowed by the surveyor. Surveyor verfied the salvage and found correct. As per report of surveyor the loss is for Rs.81,891.84. Ext.A4 is the copy of job estimate prepared by Viswas Car service. Total amount as per the estimate is Rs.1,92,967.40/-.The cost of spare parts is calculated at Rs. 1,37,168.30. Vat tax is calculated at Rs.18,517.72/- and labour charge is estimated at Rs.37,281.40/-. The surveyor prepared the report of loss sustained to the vehicle making a total of Rs.97,179.70/-. As per the report the cost of the spare parts is worked out to Rs.76,134.45 and the labour charge is assessed to Rs.21.045.25/-. The loss assessor of the respondent inspected the work order issued by workshop and the work was carried out accordingly. The complainant remitted the bill amount and took the vehicle. Ext.A5 is the invoice issued by Viswas Car service. As per Ext.A5 the total cost is shown as 1,23,365/-. As per Ext.A3 policy there is nil depreciation so opposite party is liable to pay entire own damage cover without any depreciation.

            The surveyor tentatively fixed the compensation at Rs.92,900/-. In our view considering the nature of policy opposite party is liable to pay the actual cost sustained to the petitioner. The actual cost of spares as per Ext.A5 invoice is 90,959/- the labour charge assessed in Ext.A5 is 27,700/-. So in our view opposite party is liable to pay petitioner an amount of Rs.1,18,660/-. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.

            In the result petitioner is directed to produce indemnity bond to opposite party, on a duly notarized stamp paper, as demanded by opposite party. On compliance of formality opposite party is directed to pay petitioner an amount of Rs.1,18,660/-

Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order. If the order is not complied as directed petitioner is entitled for 9% interest for award amount from the date of order till realisation.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20^th day of June, 2012.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member                     Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Ext..A1-Copy of Registration certificate

Ext.A2-Copy of driving license

Ext.A3-Policy certificate

Ext.A4-Job estimate given by Viswas car service

Ext.A5-is the copy of invoice issued by Viswas car Service

Ext.A6-Lawyer’s notice

Ext.A7-Postal receipt

Ext.A8-AD card

Ext.A9-Copy of repudiation letter dtd 31-3-11

Ext.B1-notice dtd 28-12-10

Ext.B2-notice dtd 31-3-11

Ext.B3-is the survey report of Sri.B.Sivaprakash

Ext.B4-letter of indemnity

 

By Order,