Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/118/2014

J.R.Vijayachadran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

L.Prabhahar

29 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on  :  19.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  29.12.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

 

                    THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY THE 29^th  DAY OF DECEMBER  2017

 

C.C.NO.118/2014

 

 

 

J.R.Vijayachandran,

S/o J.A Balachandran,

M/S Rishin & Co.,

5/3 Maldoom Sheriff Street,

Barracks Road, Periamet,

Chennai – 03.    

                                                                                       ..  Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., No.21 Raja Annamalai Road, Purasaiwakkam Chennai 600 084.   2. The Manager, Motor OD service Hub, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sudarsan Building “II” Floor, Old No 14 New No 27 Whites Road, Chennai 600 014.
	…..Opposite  Parties

Date of complaint                                          : 24.06.2014

Counsel for Complainant                              :L.Prabahar

Counsel for opposite parties                             : M/s. S.Arunkumar, M.L.Ganesh &,

                                                                             N.Maheswaraiah

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,300/- towards the cost of the wheel and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is the owner of TATA ACE, HT GOODS CARRIER VEHICLE bearing registration No.TN 07-BE-0660. The Complainant used the vehicle as a public carrier and also insured with the opposite parties package policy for the period 04.10.2012 to 03.10.2013. The Complainant parked his vehicle nearby his office and found that on 12.07.2013 the right side front tyre & wheel was stolen.  Immediately the Complainant filed a complaint at Vepery Police Station on 13.07.2013. The police reported that the tyre & wheel could not be traced. The Complainant made a claim based on the policy as the theft of tyre and wheel covered under the policy. The opposite parties refused to receive the claim made by the Complainant for a sum of Rs.5,300/- towards cost of the tyre & wheel. Hence the Complainant filed this complaint for the cost of the tyre & wheel and for compensation for mental agony suffered by him.

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF :

          The complaint itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The complainant obtained policy from the opposite parties would specific agreement that section I,2(a) which reads as ”the company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages nor for damages caused by overloading or strain of the insured vehicle nor for loss  or damage to accessories by burglary, housebreaking or theft unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time.”  Therefore the amount claimed by the complainant is not payable. The terms and conditions of the policy for the loss of tyre alone is not agreed to be reimbursed. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice enabling the complainant to seek a sum of Rs.5,300/- as cost of the wheel and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony. Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.     

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4.POINTNO:1

          The Complainant is the owner of the TATA ACE GOODS CARRIER VEHICLE bearing registration No. TN 07-BE-0660. The said vehicle insured with the opposite parties for the period 04.10.2012 to 03.10.2013 which is evidenced by Ex.A1 policy. The Complainant parked the vehicle nearby his office and on 12.07.2013 he found that the right side tyre & wheel was stolen.  Immediately next day he gave a complaint to the Vepery Police Station and they have also issued Ex.A3 certificate that they could not trace the stolen tyre & wheel. The opposite parties do not deny the theft of the wheel of the complainant vehicle on 12.07.2013. Therefore, it is held that the Complainant proved the theft of the right side tyre & wheel of his vehicle.

          5. Admittedly the complainant insured his vehicle with opposite parties and opposite parties issued  Ex A1 policy to the complainant. The said policy is in force for the period 04.10.2012 to 03.10.2013. Admittedly the theft of wheel was committed on 12.07.2013 during the period of the policy was in force. The policy provides to indemnify the insured for loss or damage even for theft.

          6. The complainant would content that as per section -I (1) (ii) and proviso 1. of policy, he is entitled for the claim made by him to the opposite party and the opposite parties refused to entertain the claim that they have committed deficiency in service .

          7. The opposite parties would reply that as per the section-2(a) of the policy only the vehicle theft alone covered in the policy and not the spares of the vehicle and hence the opposite parties have rightly refused to entertain the complaint and hence they have not committed deficiency in service.

          8. The relevant section I(1) & 2 in ExA1 of the policy is extracted for better appreciation as follows.

Section –I: LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE INSURED

1. The company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder and /or its accessories whilst thereon.

 

i)       by fire explosion self ignition or lightning;

ii)      by burglary housebreaking or theft;

iii)     by rlot and striks;

iv)     by earthquake (fire and shock damage);

v)      by flood typhoon hurricane storm tempest inundation cyclone hailstorm frost;

vi)     by accidental external means;

vii)    by maliclous act;

viii)   by terrorist activity;

ix)     whilst in transit by road rall inland – waterway lift elevator or air;

x)      by landslide rockslide.

Subject to a deduction for depreciation at the rates mentioned below in respect of parts replaced:

1. For all rubber/ nylon/ plastic parts, tyre and tubes, batteries        50%
2. For fibre glass components                       30%
3. For all parts made of glass                        Nil
4. Rate of depreciation for all other parts including wooden parts will be as per the following schedule:

AGE OF VEHICLE                        %DEPRECIATION

Not exceeding 6 months                                                Nil

Exceeding 6 months but not exceeding 1year…..  5%

Exceeding 1 year but not exceeding    2 years…. 10%

Exceeding 2 years but not exceeding    3 years…. 15%

Exceeding 3 years but not exceeding    4 years…. 25%

Exceeding 4 years but not exceeding    5 years…. 35%

Exceeding 5 years but not exceeding   10 years…. 40%

Exceeding 10 years…                                             50%

2. The Company shall be liable to make any payment in respect of

          (a)     Consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failure or breakages nor for  damage caused by overloading or strain of the insured vehicle nor for loss of or damage to accessories by burglary, housebreaking or theft unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time.

          9. As per section I(1)(ii) the policy issued to the complainant  covers theft and the proviso to the said section has to indemnify the insured taking into the age of the vehicle after deducting the depreciation. In the case in hand the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2009 and the right front side wheel with tyre was stolen on 12.07.2013. However for tyre as per proviso 50% depreciation has to be allowed. The theft of spare is wheel with tyre. Hence 50% of depreciation has to be deducted while awarding the value of the right front side wheel. However the opposite parties relied on section 2 clauses (a) of the policy and as per the said term the insurer shall not be liable to pay. In the case in hand the front right wheel with tyre has been stolen only by theft and not as contented by opposite parties  which ensures the opposite parties is not liable to make any payment. Therefore, the opposite parties insurance company failed to consider the claim of the complainant as per section I(1) of the policy issued by them and hence it is held that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.   

10.POINT NO:2

          According to the Complaint the value of the wheel including tyre is Rs.5,300/-. As per Proviso to section I(1) 50% of depreciation has to be deducted in the total value and balance has to be awarded to claimant. The value of wheel is Rs.5,300/-. By deducting 50% in the said value of wheel, the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,650/- from the opposite parties and accordingly the opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant towards the claim amount. The opposite parties are liable to indemnify as per the policy in force and they refused to entertain the claim of the Complainant caused mental agony to him is accepted and for such mental agony, it would be appropriate to order to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards  litigation expenses to be payable by the opposite parties to the complainant.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,650/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred and fifty only)  towards the cost of the tyre and wheel and also  to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards  compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. 

 

 

 

The above   amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 29^th   day of December 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated  NIL                Policy

Ex.A2 dated 13.07.2013     CSR Receipts

Ex.A3 dated 25.07.2013               Non traceable certificate

Ex.A4 dated 21.08.2013               Notice to opposite parties

Ex.A5 dated   NIL                         Acknowledgement /Due

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                       …….. NIL …….

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT