DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 13^th day of January 2011

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K. Member Date of filing : 4/2/2010

(C.C.No.14/2010)

C.Manutty

S/o.Babunny,

CM House, 19^th Mile

SRK Nagar, Ottapalam

Palakkad : Complainant

(By Adv.K.V.Harikumar & Adv.Manoj Ambat)

V/s

The Manager,

HDFC General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Sun Links, IInd Floor,

Athulya Building,

Chunnambuthara

Palakkad : Opposite party

(By Adv.P.Prasad)

O R D E R

By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant in brief:

Complainant is an owner of the Hyundai Accent Car insured with the opposite party vide Policy No.VP00361181000101 for the period from 2/3/2009 to 1/3/2010. The vehicle met with an accident and sustained damage. Vehicle was entrusted with M/s.KTC Automobiles Pvt..Ltd. Palakkad which is an authorised workshop and an amount of Rs.7370/ was incurred as repair charges. Complainant claimed the insurance amount through the authorised service centre, but the opposite party informed the centre that the car was not covered by insurance. Complainant was compelled to take another policy during the subsistence of the earlier policy. Hence the complainant claims loss under different heads. Rs,.7000/-, being the insurance premium paid, Rs.7370/ being the repair charges, Rs.15,000/- on the head of no claim benefit, Rs.12,278/ for availing another policy and Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and loss of reputation.

The contention of opposite party is as follows:

Opposite party totally denies the allegations of the complainant. According to opposite party no date of accident is mentioned in the complaint. As such no intimation of the accident or claim form was forwarded to the opposite party. Hence opposite party is not aware of the accident and damage sustained to the vehicle. Further no date is mentioned in the bills produced by the complainant and also complainant has availed a new policy before the expiry of the earlier one. The undated bills raises suspicious for taking another policy. Further, once the accident has occurred 'no claim bonus' will automatically cease. Moreover, complainant has not informed the police regarding the accident. There is no surveyor's report to prove damages also. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to A7 marked on the side of the complainant. Complainant cross examined as PW.1. Witness on the side of the complainant examined as PW.2. Opposite party cross examined as DW1.

Issues for consideration are :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

2. If so, what is the relief and costs ?

Issue 1 & 2

The case of the complainant is that opposite party failed to settle the genuine claim of the complainant with respect to the repair charges incurred by the complainant due to an accident.

Opposite party has made a total denial of the allegation of the complaint in the version. In the affidavit opposite party submits that no intimation of accident was made to opposite party and no claim form was forwarded to opposite party. Further the complainant has taken a fresh policy before the expiry of the earlier one and also complainant has not reported the accident to the police. All these facts taken together raises suspicious as to the genuineness of the claim.

We heard both parties at length and has gone through the entire evidence on record.

Though not specifically admitted in the version, it seems that opposite party has admitted the policy as they have produced the same and is marked as Ext.B1. It is true that the date of accident is not mentioned any where in the complaint, but Ext.A5 (lawyer notice with acknowledgment and postal receipt) is seen to have issued within the period of coverage of the policy. Further PW2 (Baburaj R.K.) has deposed that the vehicle was brought for repairs after the accident to their workshop and in his presence complainant has contacted both in the Insurance Toll Free No. and also in the phone no. of the Insurance company. It is also deposed that complainant informed to him that the company has stated that there is no valid insurance to the vehicle. So the say of the complainant that the accident was intimated to the company is supported by DW1 also.

It is seen that a new contention which is not pleaded either in version or affidavit is raised while cross examination of opposite party that the Sunlinks with whom the complainant has contacted regarding the claim has no direct connection with the opposite party company and opposite party is not aware of any notice issued to Sunlinks. It is also further stated by DW1 that Sunlinks is an agent of the company to issue cover note alone.

This stand of opposite party seems to be not sustainable. Ext.A1 cover note bears the seal of Sunlinks. On the one hand opposite party says that Sunlinks is an agent of opposite party to issue Insurance cover note. On the other hand says that opposite party is not bound by any notice to sunlinks. These contentions seems to be totally contradictory. It is a well established principle of law that a Principal is liable for the acts of the agent during the course of his employment. Further the rule of constructive notice that the notice to agent is notice to principal is also to be taken in to account. So we are of the view that opposite party cannot escape from liability for the reason that no information was directly served upon them and no claim form was preferred to them.

Ext.A6 shows that an amount of Rs.7370/- was incurred as repair charges. It is the duty of opposite party to appoint a surveyor to asses damages as soon as intimation is received. Opposite party has failed to appoint surveyor. Hence we have no other option other than to rely on Ext.A6.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complainant is entitled for compensation.

Complainant has claimed no claim bonus of Rs.15,000/- No claim bonus will be available only when no claim is made to the company. Once accident has occurred and claim with respect to the accident is made to the company, complainant is not entitled for no claim bonus.

In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.7370/- being the repair charges along with Rs.5000/ as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on the 13^th day of January 2011.

Sd/-

Smt.Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Smt.Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt.Bhanumathi A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the Complainant

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of cover note issued by the respondent.

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Certificate of insurance cum policy schedule issued by respondent

Ext.A3 – Photocopy of Invoice issued by KTC automobile Pvt..Ltd.

Ext.A4 – Photocopy of Insurance Policy issued by United India Insurance Co.

Ext.A5 – Photocopy of Lawyer notice issued to the respondent with postal receipts

Ext.A6 – Cash invoice dated 14/12/09 of KTC Automobiles, Pvt.Ltd. Palakkad

Ext.A7 – Photocopy of Driving Licence of Manutty.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Copy of car policy issued by HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1 – Sri.Baburaj, R.K.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

DW1 – Sri.Komalkumar D

Cost - Allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.