Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

460/2010

N.Chandrasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.V.Udayakumar

12 May 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   15.12.2010

                                                                        Date of Order :   12.05.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 460/2010

FRIDAY THIS  12^TH  DAY OF MAY 2017

Mr. N. Chandrasekar,

No.34 A, Sriram Colony,

Alwarpet,

Chennai 600 016.                                              .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

The Manager,

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,

6^th Floor, Reliance House,

No.6, Haddows Road,

Nungumbakkam,

Chennai 600 006.                                               .. Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. V.Somasundaram 

Counsel for opposite party      :    M/s. Elveera Ravindran   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.14,573/- towards cost of repair with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and hardship and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.

 

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that he had purchased a Bajaj Discover motorcycle  on 17.11.2009, bearing registration No.TN22 20090003979 and insured with the opposite party.   The complainant also submit that the above said vehicle sustained accident on 2.5.2010 due to which the said vehicle was damaged and  registered a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, JA Neelangarai Police Station on 2.5.2010 and the complainant had also informed to the opposite party through phone.    

2.     The complainant further contended that later the opposite party’s surveyor inspected the vehicle and recommended  repairs to be carried on the vehicle.   Instead of paying the claim amount, the opposite party sent a letter stating that the complainant’s claim was rejected on the ground of delay of more than 60 days in intimating the claim.   As such the act of the opposite party clearly amounts for gross deficiency in service and thereby caused mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

        The allegations in the complaint are hereby denied except those that are specifically admitted and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party submit that it is true that the complainant’s new Bajaj Discover motorcycle was insured with the opposite party under policy No.1216492312005743.  

4.     The opposite party also submit that the  Insurance was provided subject to specific terms and conditions stipulated in the policy which the complainant has conveniently omitted to file.  The opposite party also states that due to the inordinate delay of 60 days in reporting the loss, the opposite party has been deprived of opportunity to verify the truth and correctness of the same as claimed.   The complainant has thus committed serious breach of condition No. 1 of the policy.  Any claim is subject to terms of the policy.  In view of the breach, the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant.  The alleged accident on 2.5.2010 is not admitted.   It is denied that any complaint in writing was forwarded to the opposite party on 5.5.2010.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

5.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 marked on the side of the opposite party.  

6.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.14,573/- towards cost of repair of the vehicle together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.  as prayed for ? 

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for hardship and mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for deficiency in service ?

 

7. POINT No.1

 

        Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN22 20090003979, met with an accident on 2.5.2010 having the subsistence of policy with the opposite party.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that immediately after the accident due FIR Ex.A2 has been registered.   Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the fatal accident the motor vehicle damaged.  Due intimation was given to the opposite party insurance company through phone and afterwards by way of enclosing Ex.A2 FIR.   The opposite party insurance company also appointed a surveyor who has assessed the damages but has not filed the report in this case.   Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite party repudiated the claim alleging that there is a delay of 60 days in giving information regarding the accident.   Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case for claiming damages of Rs.14,573/- towards cost of repair for the deficiency in service committed.

8.        The learned counsel for the complainant further vehemently  contended that the alleged delay pleaded by the opposite party is false and imaginary.   Ex.A2 FIR has been registered on the very same date of accident.   In addition to that as per Ex.A5 due information given to the insurance company.  The opposite party suppressing the fatal accident and registration of FIR Ex.A2 and the information Ex.A5 repudiated the claim,  after due assessment by the surveyor of the opposite party.    The learned counsel for the complainant cited the decision reported in

III (2006) CPJ 398

DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

ALPHINE INDUSTRIES

..Vs..

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Held that

 

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Insurance – Consignment damaged – Loss assessed by Surveyor – Claim repudiated – Contention, consignment not damaged when delivered to consignee – It damaged when transported back through another carrier  - Contention, not acceptable – Return of consignment by Government could be for no other reason than that these were received in damaged condition – By appointing Surveyor Insurance Company admitted its liability – Loss assessed by Surveyor payable – Carrier liable for not handling the goods properly – Liable to pay damages. “

The Surveyor Mr.K.K.Taneja, appointed by respondent No.1 assessed the loss in respect of three consignments to the tune of Rs.94,362.32.   In spite of assessment of loss by the Surveyor, respondent No.1 rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant did not inform the concerned zonal office of respondent No.1 company about the damage within 7 days as per terms of invoice. “

9.     The contention of the opposite party is that as per the policy condition Clause–I the intimation shall be given immediately.  In this case, the complainant has not given such information regarding the accident.   Hence the opposite party rightly repudiated  the claim.  But the opposite party failed to consider the registration of FIR immediately after the fatal accident and the duty of the police officer giving information to insurance company under the Motor Vehicle Act.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the alleged Ex.A5 letter, dated 5.5.2010 issued by the complainant was not forwarded to the insurance company shows the delay of 60 days since no acknowledgment filed.    Hence the claim was repudiated on the ground that the delay of 60 days caused.  The learned counsel for opposite party also  has not considered the due registration of FIR Ex.A2 in this fatal accident case resulting the damages of the motor cycle. 

 10.   The learned counsel for the opposite party cited the decisions reported in

1. 2013 (1) CPR 394 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

SHRI KULDEEP SINGH

1.  

IFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

 

2. 2013 (2) CPR 844 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

..Vs..

Sh. Harpreet Singh

 

3. CD 2013 (Consumers) Case No.912

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

Kamaljit kaur

..Vs..

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

 

 

 

It is Held that

 

Condition No.1 of the insurance policy read as under :

 

•  

 

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this forum is of the considered view that the complainant rightly claimed the repairing chares after due inspection by the surveyor and  he is entitled to a sum of 14,573/- with interest at the of rate of 9% p.a. and the point is answered accordingly.

11.    POINT No.2

        The learned counsel for the complainant contended that as per Ex.A2 the fatal accident happened on 2.5.2010 resulting the damage to the motor vehicle bearing registration No.TN22 20090003979 having subsistence of policy with the opposite party.   Even after appointment of surveyor by the opposite party, repudiated the claim on the ground of delay in information without considering the registration of FIR thereby the complainant was put to great hardship and mental agony.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation with cost of Rs.10,000/-.   The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the damage claimed by the complainant is only Rs.14,573/-.  The claim was repudiated after due enquiry.  But failed to consider the immediate registration of FIR and the fatal nature of the accident and the severe damages caused to the insured vehicle.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the claim towards mental agony and cost of the complaint is exorbitant and imaginary.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this forum is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- awarded towards cost of the complaint and the point is answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,573/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand five hundred and seventy three only) towards cost of repair of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 15.12.2010 to till the date of this order i.e. 12.5.2017 and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to the complainant.     

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.           

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  12^th  day  of  May 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1-  17.11.2009   -  Copy of Reliance Insurance company policy

                                      Schedule.

Ex.A2-  2.5.2010       -  Copy of FIR No.316/2010.

Ex.A3- 11.4.2009               -  Copy of Driving License of Jakkaria.

Ex.A4- 3.5.2010        -  Copy of Post Mortem Certificate.

Ex.A5- 5.5.2010        - Copy of Complainant’s letter.

Ex.A6- 11.6.2010               - Copy of estimation bill.

Ex.A7- 29.9.2010       - Copy of letter from the Reliance General

                                      Insurance Company.

Ex.A8- 8.9.2010         - Copy of workshop cash bill.

 

Opposite party’s side document: -   

Ex.B1-        -        - Copy of Policy.

Ex.B2-  29.9.2010 – Copy of Repudiation letter.

Ex.B3-        -         - Copy of claim status.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.