DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of February 2015
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 07/03/2014
(C.C.No.32/2014)
Ashokan.T
Thozhuthingal House,
Thachampara,
Mannarkkad, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.Sreeprakash)
Vs
1.Manager
Cholamandalam MS Insurance Company Ltd.
2nd Floor, Dare House 2,
NSC Bose Road, Chennai
(By Adv.P.Prasad)
2.The Manager
Cholamandalam Ms Insurance Company Ltd.,
Thulaseedalam Buildings,
2nd floor, Kalmandapam,
Palakkad
(By Adv.P.Prasad) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of the complaint. Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL5-U-8071. The vehicle has been insured with opposite parties. On 3/3/13 when the vehicle was passing through the Manorama Junction, Thrissur, it got damaged due to the big gutter formed in the road. Back axis, back Aub, right side, leaf set, right side back punch etc. were totally damaged. Then the complainant immediately informed the matter to 1st opposite party by phone. As per the request of 1st opposite party complainant contacted the Surveyor and Engineer and they assured the complainant that they will inspect the vehicle and will do the needful. Then the complainant has taken the vehicle to PSN Automobiles, Mannarkkad. Complainant submitted that Rs.30,350/- was spent towards labour charges, Rs.18,000/- spent for other expenses, Rs.4500/- spent to arrange the another vehicle to transport the timber and Rs.4500/- paid for availing service of crane. Total Rs.71,500/- was spent for expenses. Then the complainant make an application for a claim of Rs.30,000/- before opposite parties. But opposite parties rejected the claim. The complainant submitted that the rejection of claim amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version stating that complainant had not given an opportunity to inspect the vehicle immediately after the incident in order to assess the actual loss. It amounts to clear violation of policy condition. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. Opposite parties further submitted that Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report or independent surveyors report were not produced to show the actual loss or damages. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get the compensation from opposite parties. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the complainant.
Issues are to be considered
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
- If so, what is the relief ?
Issues 1 & 2
Opposite party heard. Complainant was not present for hearing. Opposite party admitted the policy but disputed the accident. From the part of complainant, no relevant documents are not produced. Moreover the complainant did not give an opportunity to opposite party to inspect the vehicle immediately after the incident to assess the loss on damage. Nothing is produced to prove that complainant had informed the opposite party about matter by phone. Complainant deprived opposite party’s right to inspect the vehicle before repair. It is a clear violation of policy condition. The complainant is failed to prove his case. Hence we are not in a position to attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2015.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost (Allowed)
No cost allowed.
