D.O.F:23/11/2018
D.O.O:25/08/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.190/2018
Dated this, the 25th day of August 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Nabeesa,
W/o Ibrahim,
R/at Kudalmerkala of Kayyar Village,
Kudalmerkala Post, Manjeshwar Taluk, :Complainant
Kasaragod District
(Adv: Rajagopala A.& Naveen. S.N)
And
1. The Manager,
Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd
E-8,EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, : Opposite Parties
Seethapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302022
2. The Manager,
Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd
Regd. Office, Mookambika Complex,
3rd floor, No.4, Lady Desika Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004
(Adv: A.C. Ashok)
3. The Manager,
Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd,
Opp: Uppala Village and Post,
Manjeshwar Taluk, Kasaragod District
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( as amended )
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant is the owner of TATA -ACE-HT vehicle bearing No - KL 14N - 4082, which was hypothecated to Opposite Party No.3. The Vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.1 and 2 with policy No.10003/31/17/188585 for the period from 15.06.2016 to 14.06.2017.
The vehicle met with an accident on 16.10.2016 and a claim was immediately lodged for damage which was duly registered as claim No.10000/31/17/ C/ 048169. The vehicle was got repaired by spending a sum of Rs.110,000/- and the same was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 for the settlement of the claim. The opposite party No.1 instead of settling the claim issued a notice dated 30.12.2016 raising false and untenable contentions that the complainant has not repaired the vehicle etc.
It is submitted that the complainant is a poor labourer and the vehicle purchased was for eking out her livelihood out of the income derived there from.
The non settling of the claim of the complainant is service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties due to which the complainant is put to mental agony and hardships. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the repair charge of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and costs.
The opposite parties entered appearance through their respective counsels ,who filed separate written Versions.
As per the version of the opposite party No.1 the complaint is false frivolous, vexatious, and not maintainable at law .The insurance coverage for the vehicle No - KL 14N - 4082 is admitted. But the contentions that the vehicle was got repaired by the complainant by spending a sum of Rs.110,000/- and the same was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 for the settlement of the claim etc. are denied . It is submitted that the opposite party No.1 conducted survey of the vehicle and as per the survey report the loss was assessed to Rs.10,100/-towards repairing the vehicle .The opposite party No.1 as per the letter dated 30.12.2016 to the complainant offered to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.10,100/-and requested to initiate repairs to vehicle in coordination with the insurance surveyor and to submit the bill. But the complainant failed to respond to the notice for a long time .Hence the opposite party No.1 treated the claim as closed.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.
The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
As per the version of the opposite party No.3, it is submitted that the notice to the opposite party No.2 and 3 are wrongly served to opposite party.No.3 and the Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd has no connection with the Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. The names of opposite party No.2 and 3 are to be removed from the party array.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in Iieu of chief examination and documents as Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 6 and Ext.X1 are marked. He was cross examined as PW 1. The Ext - A1 is a copy of the Copy of RC in the name of complainant , Ext A 2 is the original insurance policy Certificate, Ext. A3 is letter dated 30-12-2016, Ext. A4 is letter dated 19-09-2017, Ext. A5 is the copy of Lawyers notice dated 24-09-2018, A6 is the postal AD card. The Ext X1 is a photocopy of the entire File relating to the claim of the complainant produced by the opposite party No.1.
From the side of opposite party No.1, Mr. Raghavan KV , the surveyor is examined as DW-1 and Documents Ext. B1 is marked . Ext. B1 is the Survey Report , which is the page No. 3 to 14 of the Ext X1.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of any of the opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief ?
For convenience, all the above issues are discussed together.
The specific case of the complainant is that her vehicle having a valid insurance policy, met with an accident on 16.10.2016 and a claim was immediately lodged for damage which was duly registered as claim No.10000/31/17/ C/ 048169.
The vehicle was got repaired by spending a sum of Rs.110,000/- and the same was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 for the settlement of the claim. The opposite party No.1 instead of settling the claim issued a notice Dated 30.12.2016 raising false and untenable contentions that the complainant has not repaired the vehicle etc. It is submitted that the complainant is a poor labourer and the vehicle purchased was for eking out her livelihood out of the income derived there from.
The non settling of the claim of the complainant is service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties due to which the complainant is put to mental agony and hardships.
The opposite party No.1 contested the case on the ground that the complaint is false frivolous, vexatious, and not maintainable at law . The insurance coverage for the vehicle No - KL 14N - 4082 is admitted. But the contentions that the vehicle was got repaired by the complainant by spending a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and the same was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 for the settlement of the claim etc. are denied . It is submitted that the opposite party No.1 conducted survey of the vehicle by a surveyor and as per the survey report the loss was assessed to Rs.10,100/-towards repairing the vehicle .The opposite party No.1 as per the letter dated 30.12.2016 to the complainant offered to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.10,100/-and requested to initiate repairs to vehicle in coordination with the insurance surveyor and to submit the bill. But the complainant failed to respond to the notice for a long time . Hence the opposite party No.1 treated the claim as closed.
Here the Ext. X1 is the photo copy of entire File relating to the claim of the complainant produced by the opposite party No.1. It contains all the available documents related to the claim of the complainant. The opposite party No.1 mainly rely on the Survey Report prepared by the Surveyor. Ext . B1 is the Survey Report , which is the page No.3 to 14 of the Ext X1. The opposite party No.1 content that no repair of the vehicle was done by the complainant. In the Ext. A3, the letter dated 30-12-2016, the opposite party No.1 state that as on date the claim is aging 71 days and till the day the complainant had not initiated the repairs of his vehicle. But the complainant did not produce any reliable document to show the exact details of the repair work. In the Ext. A4 letter dated 19-09-2016 the complainant states that as per the Ext A3 letter issued by the opposite party No.1 , she had taken her vehicle to Friends Auto Mobile Kumbla and the required work completed for Rs. 1,10,000/- . The copies of bills /estimates produced before the opposite party No.1 along with the claim which are seen in the Ext X1 file show that the repair work was done at Sri Mahalakshmi Auto Works, Adka, Mangalpady. The complainant did not care to clarify this aspect during evidence. The proof affidavit filed by her is silent on this aspect. More over the complainant did not produce any receipt or Tax invoices for the amount spent and claimed by her. The copies of bills /estimates produced before the opposite party No.1 along with the claim seen in the Ext . X1 file do not contain the vehicle number or name of the complainant. So these bills /estimates would not help the complainant.
Therefore in the facts and circumstances of this case, this commission is of the view that the complainant could not prove that such a huge amount was spent by her for the repair of the vehicle. Here the opposite party No.1 admit the accident of the vehicle during the period of a valid insurance. The surveyor appointed by them inspected and reported that the net liability of the insurer is Rs.10,100/-.
Therefore this commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled for that amount only. Ext. A3 is a letter dated 30-12-2016 which shows that the opposite party No.1 had offered only Rs.10,000/-, a lesser amount than assessed. In that sense there is service deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.1.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,100/- to the complainant, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 23.11.2018 , the date of complaint, till the date of payment. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupeestowards compensation and Rs.3000/-as cost.
The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of R.C
A2- Original insurance policy certificate
A3- Letter Dt: 30/12/2016
A4- Letter Dt: 19/09/2017
A5- Copy of lawyers notice
A6- Postal acknowledgment
X1- Photocopy of the entire file relating to the claim
B1- Survey report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Nabeesa
Dw1- Raghava.K
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
