DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of April 2016
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 30/01/2014
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.14/2014)
S.Radhakrishnan,
S/o.Sadhanandhan, Mampozhil House,
Bhoothi Vazhi, Agali P.O.
Mannarkkad
Now residing at Manpozhil House,
Kasothara, Chittur P.O.
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.Shaik Abdulla)
Vs
1.M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Regd.Office, Reliance Centre 19
Walchand Hirachand Marg
Bailard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001
Rep.by its General Manager
2.Branch Manager
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Palakkad branch,
Regd.Office, Mangalam Tower,
Opp.Town Bus Stand, T.B.Road, Palakkad
(By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran)
3.Ali Akbar
Customer Service Officer
1st Floor Kinathiyil Building,
Opp.Telephone Exchange
Mannarkkad – 678 582
(By Adv.Ali Musthafa.S) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
Brief facts of complaint.
Complainant who is a practicing lawyer at Palakkad, had purchased a motor private Hyundai /Eon ERA + M in the year 2012 and registered the vehicle before RTO Mannarkkad vide vehicle No.KL-50-B-3159 and took a policy from the first opposite party, after one year on 8th March 2013. The complainant renewed the policy from the 1st opposite party through 3rd opposite party for a period from 8th March 2013 to midnight 7th March 2014. The total cover was 2,52,590/- as IDBE amount taken through the customer service officer, Mannarkkad of the 3rd opposite party for which complainant made a payment of Rs.9227/- plus service charges. The policy was endorsed for full depreciation cover for which the complainant had paid extra amount as per the companies rules and regulations. At the time of taking policy complainant was made to believe that in case of any damages or loss of the vehicle the insured amount will be given to the complainant within two weeks of time. Unfortunately the complainant’s above said car met with an accident on 14/6/2013 at about 10.45 pm. The car fell down about 65 feet down and burned at spot at Agali village, Palakkad district while it was driven by the complainant. The complainant however escaped with minute injuries he was found by some strangers and was informed to Agali police station, and fire force at Mannarkkad. They reached the spot and stopped the fire and brought the complainant to Taluk Hospital, Mannarkkad. The vehicle was totally damaged. After the incident the complainant informed about the accident to the 3rd opposite party and subsequently to the 2nd opposite party’s branch office, at Palakkad. The 3rd opposite party arranged a spot survey. The surveyor taken spot survey on 15/6/2013 and subsequently on 16/6/2013. In the meantime, the first opposite party sent mobile messages advising the complainant to meet Mr.A.V.Babu, Insurance Surveyor, for further proceedings and assured that the claim will be settled within a fortnight. As the complainant completed all the formalities the complainant was informed that the claim had been forwarded to 1st opposite party and they assured that the claim amount will be provided within 15 days. After the spot survey, with the instructions from the 1st opposite arty, the burned vehicle was shifted to grand Hyundai showroom by Greeshma Engineering works Palakkad, for which Rs.12,000/- was taken from the complainant as transportation expenses and Rs.500/- was paid through treasury account for fire brigades. The complainant has completed all formalities like Police Report, Fir Report and other relevant documents required for receiving the claim, but the first opposite party has not paid any single penny for the loss of the vehicle and still they are silent about the payment of insurance amount of Rs.2,52,590/- along with other expenses that complainant spent for getting the claim. Complainant visited several occasions in the office of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties but was of no use. The first opposite party made a breach of service by nonpayment of insured amount to the complainant along with other opposite parties. At last the complainant issued a registered notice to the 1st opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.2,52,590/ along with other expenses spent during the transactions of the claim alongwith 18% interest with the date of claim. But opposite party has not responded, hence the above complaint was filed. Complainant being a lawyer had suffered so much for the nonpayment of insured amount from the opposite parties. Due to non availability of the vehicle the complainant and his family had to face too much of troubles which had created lot of mental agony because of the breach of service and negligence from the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties are legally and orally liable to compensate the complainant. Opposite parties had committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and had also violated all existing laws in this regard. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Complainant is legally entitled to get the compensation as claimed from the opposite parties.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating the following contention.
1st and 2nd opposite parties admitted that the vehicle NO.KL50B-3159 was insured by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 7/3/2011 to 7/3/2014 and the premium collected for the said coverage is Rs.9227/-. It is not correct to state that at the time of availing the said policy the complainant had paid extra amount for getting nil depreciation endorsed in the said policy. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties had charged only the usual premium collected for providing comprehensive coverage for the similar vehicle and no extra premium is collected from the complainant as alleged by him. They had also denied the statement that at the time of availing the policy complainant was made believe that in the event of any damage or loss of the insured vehicle the insured amount would be given to the complainant within two weeks of time. Complainant is put to strict proof of his claim that his vehicle had met with an accident on 14/6/2013 at about 10.45 pm, and that his car had fell down about 65 feet and it caught fire at Agali Village, Palakkad District while the same was being driven by the complainant and that the incident was informed to the Agali Police and Fire Force Mannarkkad and that both of them reached the spot and brought the complainant to taluk hospital and he happened to escape with minor injuries and that the insured vehicle was totally damaged. The alleged incident is not seen reported to the police immediately and no FIR was got registered by the complainant. 1st and 2nd opposite parties admits that the spot survey was arranged by opposite parties after receiving intimation regarding the incident from the complainant and that Mr.A.V.Babu conducted the survey. The wreck value assessed by the surveyor includes the value of engine also. After the survey the complainant was directed to shift the vehicle to the yard of any authorized service centre and to inform these opposite parties regarding the same. Complainant informed accordingly. And on inspection it was found that the engine of the said vehicle was missing and the same was removed from the wreck. These opposite parties contacted the complainant and enquired about the engine and no proper explanation could be offered by the complainant and the complainant tried to wriggle out of his responsibility stating that once the loss of vehicle is assessed by the surveyor, the wreck becomes the responsibility of the insurer. The opposite parties informed the complainant that as it was the complainant who had arranged the vehicle to be tow the vehicle to the service centre and it was the responsibility of the complainant to handover the wreck with all the parts fittings and engine which were assessed by the surveyor. The amount of compensation that would be paid as per the terms and conditions of the policy is the amount arrived at after deducting the wreck value which include the value of the engine. Due to the negligence on the part of the complainant the engine was lost from the wreck and hence he is not legally and factually entitled for any compensation towards the value of the engine and related parts. Under the above circumstances these opposite parties is liable to pay the value of the insured vehicle to the complainant as per the terms of the policy issued, the value of wreck inclusive of the engine and related parts with depreciation may be deducted for arriving at the amount to which the complainant is entitled under the policy. In addition to the above the complainant’s claim could not be processed by the opposite parties as the complainant failed to submit 1) FIR copy (for theft of engine and related parts after accident) 2)one concerned letter signed by the insured 3) PAN card copy 4) address proof and ID proof 5) NOC from financier. Inspite of repeated requests the above mentioned documents required to process the claim of the complainant was not made available. There is no deficiency of service on the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. The amount of compensation claimed by the complainant under different heads are highly exorbitant and complainant is not legally and factually entitled for the same. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
3rd opposite party also admits that the complainant had availed the policy through them who is a customer service officer of the 1st opposite party. He has also admitted that the accident on 14/6/2013 and opposite parties 1 & 2 had arranged a spot survey on 15/6/2013 and the surveyor visited the spot and took photographs of the vehicle involved in the accident. At the time of spot survey the vehicle got fired and was totally damaged and destroyed. The engine of the vehicle was there at the time of spot survey and at the time of visit of 3rd opposite party. The Fire brigadier of Mannarkkad set off the fire and also intimated to the police station of Agali and Mannarkkad and they reach the spot on the same day. After the accident the claim was forwarded to 1st and 2nd opposite parties. It is the 1st and 2nd opposite parties who had to take decision on the reimbursement of the total coverage of insured vehicle. The 3rd opposite party had no role in settling the matter. After the spot survey the vehicle was transported to Grand Hyundai Show room Kallekkad, Palakkad as per the instruction of the opposite parties 1 & 2.
Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Ext.A1 to A8 was marked from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties also filed chief affidavit. Ext.B1 to B8 was marked from the side of the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed fresh chief affidavit of authorized person. Complainant filed application for production document from opposite parties. Authorized person of opposite parties was examined as DW1. Evidence was closed, matter was heard.
The following issues are considered
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2.If so, what is the relief?
Issue 1& 2
Heard the parties. It is admitted that complainants vehicle Numbered KL50B-3159 was insured by Reliance General Insurance Company for a period from 7/3/2013 to 7/3/2014 under Ext.B1 policy and that the premium collected for the said coverage is Rs.9227/-. The complainant’s said vehicle met with an accident on 14/6/2013 and it caught fire and that the insured vehicle was totally damaged. Survey was arranged by the opposite parties 1 & 2 after receiving intimation regarding the incident from the complainant and the surveyor has prepared Ext.B7 survey report. According to the complainant the policy was endorsed for nil depreciation cover for which the complainant have paid extra amount as per the companies rules and regulations, at the time of taking policy the complainant was made believe that in case any damages or loss of the vehicle the insured amount would be given to the complainant within two weeks of time. But according to the opposite party complainant’s claim that as per the policy the insurer cannot deduct depreciation for the parts is not correct. As per Ext.B1 policy “NIL Depreciation” clause is applicable only in cases of approved partial loss claims and the same is not applicable in cases of total loss or constructive total loss and admittedly the claim of the complainant is one for total loss. Complainant’s claim that he had completed all the formalities for enabling the opposite parties to process the claim is not correct. According to the opposite parties complainant failed to submit necessary documents which were mandatory for processing the claim and the same is proved from the copy of communications produced and marked from the side of opposite parties as Ext.B2, B3 & B4 under which complainant is requested time and again by the opposite parties to produce all the necessary documents. Complainant’s claim that he had paid Rs.12000/- as advised by the first opposite party towards transportation charges of the vehicle to the yard of authorized service centre is also disputed. According to the opposite parties no such advise was given by them to the complainant and the amount claimed to have been paid for transportation is highly exorbitant and not supported by vouchers and as per Ext.B1 policy complainant is not entitled for transportation charges.
According to the opposite parties they had arranged spot survey after receiving intimation regarding the incident from the complainant and surveyor conducted the survey. The wreck value assessed by the surveyor included the value of engine also. After the survey the complainant was directed to shift the vehicle to the yard of any authorized service centre. Complainant informed the opposite party regarding shifting of the vehicle to grant Hyundai showroom and on inspection it was found that the engine of the said vehicle was missing and the same was removed from the wreck. The opposite party contacted the complainant and enquired about the engine and informed the complainant that the engine was lost from the wreck and he had to register a complaint regarding theft of the engine for which the complainant has not done. According to the opposite parties the amount of compensation that would be paid as per the terms and conditions of the policy is the amount arrived at after deducting the wreck value which included the value of the engine. It was only due to the negligence on the part of the complainant that the engine was lost from the wreck. According to the opposite party they were always willing to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor after deducting the value of engine and related parts on production the afore mentioned documents which were necessary for processing the claim. But the complainant failed to produce the aforementioned documents and insisted for payment of the amount declare to be the value of the vehicle by the complainant as mentioned in Ext.B1 policy and hence the claim could not be settled. The complainant is legally entitled to deduct the value of wreck, which is the property of the complainant for the reason that complainant could realize amount by selling the wreck. In this particular case the wreck included engine and related parts worth Rs.1,27,378/-, which were found missing subsequently and admittedly no complaint is preferred by the complainant regarding the same. Had the complainant preferred a complaint regarding theft of engine and related parts, a FIR would be registered and the police would have investigated the same and would have filed a final report and based on the same complainant could have preferred a subsequent claim regarding the same and the opposite parties would have processed it. But the complainant had not taken any steps leading to processing of the subsequent claim. In the above circumstances we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The claim of the complainant could not be settled due to the non cooperation from the part of the complainant.
In the light of the above discussions the above complaint is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of April 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Insurance Certificate of Vehicle No.KL-50-B-3159 issued by first
opposite party
Ext.A2 - RC Book of vehicle No.KL-50-B-3159
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of the Police Report
Ext.A4 Photocopy of the Fire Report
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of Notice sent to opposite party
Ext.A6 – Postal Receipt dtd.15/11/13
Ext.A7 – Photocopy of Ration Card of complainant
Ext.A8 – Photocopy of Arbitration Proceedings.
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.B1 – Copy of Insurance Policy with conditions
Ext.B2 – Copy of letter dated 6/3/2014
Ext.B3 – Copy of letter dated 18/3/2014
Ext.B4 – Copy of final reminder letter dated 28/3/14
Ext.B5 – Copy of final reminder letter dated 1/4/2014
Ext.B6 – Copy of Email dated 30/4/2014
Ext.B7 – Copy of Surveyor’s Report.
Ext.B8 – Original letter sent to complainant which stood returned unclaimed.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1 – Anstin
Cost
No cost allowed.
