By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The case of the complainant is that his jeep bearing Registration No. KL-12-F-237 was insured with the opposite party on 07-02-2016 and paid Rs.9,800/- towards the premium through the opposite party’s agent Tom Joseph and received the policy also. On 25-02-2019 the vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages, the complainant intimated to the opposite party regarding the accident. A surveyor of the insurance company on the same day has inspected the vehicle and assessed damages and reported that will Rs.34,150/- towards the damages and rest amount not given by saying that they can give that much amount only. The denial of the claim amounts to deficiency in service and hence the petitioner is entitled to get the balance amount and damages and cost of the case.
3. Being noticed on the complaint all the opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed version. The opposite party admits the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 12-F-237 is insured with opposite party, but denied the other allegations. The opposite party deputed a surveyor to assess the damages and he rightly assessed damages and reported. It is not correct to say that the surveyor came from the opposite party company and he assessed damage as Rs. 1,18,000/-. The surveyor conducted the survey and assessed damage is Rs. 34,503/- only and the same was not accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.1,18,500/-. The opposite party denies the demand of higher amount and says that the complainant already received Rs.34,503/- for work and labour charge. No deficiency in service committed by these opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to get Rs.84,000/- towards the damages and Rs.5,000/- towards cost and Rs.10,000/- towards the loss.
4. On perusal of complaint and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service committed by the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any amount from the opposite
parties?
3. Relief and cost.
5. On the side of the complainant the complainant examined as PW-1 and the insurance policy is marked as Ext. A-1. Ext.A1 is the copy of insurance policy of the vehicle. The opposite parties reported that they have no oral evidence. The surveyor’s report called for by the Forum is marked as Ext X-1.
6. Point No. 1 & 2 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity the points No. 1 and 2 considered together.
7. This is a complaint filed by the insured person against the insurance company under section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986. The opposite party here admitted the relationship, policy and the accident but they denied the amount claimed by the complainant. The opposite party further stated in the version that they have not committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complainant. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party denied to paying the full amount which is assessed by the deputed surveyor. The definite case of the complainant is that the damage assessed by the surveyor is Rs.1,18,500/- and the opposite party not allowed that much amount. But on going through the report, Ext. X-1 it is clearly a show that the net amount assessed is only Rs.31844.21. It is pertinent to note that the complainant not produced any estimate, workshop bills and any documents to establish his claim is genuine. The complainant herein utterly failed to prove or substantiate his case by producing cogent evidence before this Forum.
8. On going through the available records and submissions the Forum found that there is no deficiency in service had happened from the part of the opposite parties. So, the points are found infavour of the opposite parties.
9. Point No.3:- Since the Point No.1 and 2 are found against the complainant and he is not entitle to get any relieves as prayed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Forum has not allowing any cost.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3rd day of January 2020.
Date of filing:13.10.2017.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant.:-
PW1. Ajith kumar. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Private Car Package Policy Schedule.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
X1. Final Survey Report.
