CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 31st day of December, 2011.
Present: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member Date of filing: 06/06/2011.
CC / 79 / 2011
O. Muhammad,
S/o. Oravil Kunjavaran,
Angadi Amsam Desam,
Ottapalam Taluk. - Complainant
(BY ADV. T.M. ABDUL RASHEED & ADV. K. ANEES)
Vs
The Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office, Pranavam,
Mele Pattambi,
Palakkad – 679 306. - Opposite party
(BY ADV. S.T. SURESH)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
The case of the complainant:
Complainant is the owner of the Mahindra Load King (Lorry) with the register number KL-52/30. The said vehicle was toppled on the road side on 03/03/2011 at a place called Ponnani and sustained heavy damages. The incident informed to the opposite party immediately and a Surveyor appointed by the Insurance company inspected the same. After the inspection of the Surveyor the vehicle was shifted to a workshop named Taaz Tech, Tipper Body Builders, Kadungooth, Malappuram. After the repairing the said workshop has issued a bill for Rs. 40,500/- as repair charge only. Besides this amount an amount of Rs. 14,846/- spent for purchasing the damaged parts. Complainant spent an amount of Rs. 55,346/- for repairing the vehicle. The original bills are submitted in the Insurance company. There was valid policy coverage at the time of accident. So that the opposite party is bound to pay the entire amount which was spent by the complainant. But the opposite party prepared to pay an amount of Rs. 14,500/- only. The said amount was not accepted by the complainant. Opposite party assessed the amount without any basis. Even after many requests the opposite party is not ready to give the entire amount. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 55,346 with 18% interest and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Opposite party says that it is incorrect to state that the accident was intimated to the opposite party immediately after the accident. The accident of the vehicle KL-52/30 was reported only on 04/03/2011. It is true that the company deputed a Surveyor and furnished a detailed survey report. The surveyor had assessed the loss to Rs. 13,500/-. The complainant had furnished an excessive claim of Rs. 40,500/- towards repairing charges and Rs. 14,846/- towards expenses for parts purchased.
Opposite party admits that the vehicle Kl-52/30 had insured with the opposite party and there was valid policy coverage at the relevant time. That does not mean that the company is bound to pay whatever amount asked by the complainant. The surveyor assessed the loss with all technical diligence. It is quite incorrect to say allege that the damage was assessed without any basis. According to the report by the Surveyor the company prepared to pay the amount. But the complainant refused. Company is not bound to pay the excessive and exorbitant claim put forward by the complainant. So the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext. A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext. A1 marked with objection. With objection Ext. B1 was marked on the side of opposite party. Two witnesses were examined as PW1 and DW1.
Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ? If so,
2. What is the relief and cost?
Issues I & II
The complainant in this case is the RC owner of Mahindra Load King tipper Lorry which bears the register No. KL-52/30. The said vehicle is insured with opposite party. The vehicle was having a full time insurance coverage with opposite party. On 03/03/2011, the said vehicle was met with an accident and the vehicle turned down and sustained heavy damages. The complainant spent Rs. 55,346/- for repairing and replacing the damaged parts. But the opposite party sanctioned only an amount of Rs.13,500/-. The complainant did not accept the amount as it is so scanty and meager.
Opposite party admits that at the time of accident there was valid policy coverage. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that opposite party deputed an authorized Surveyor to assess the damage. While assessing the damages all the relevant factors were taken in to consideration by the surveyor. Even if there is valid policy coverage at the relevant time company is not bound to pay whatever amount demanded by the complainant.
The Surveyor was examined as DW1. His report is marked as Ext. B1. On going through the survey report there is no much dispute regarding the damages caused. Surveyor assessed 13,000/- for total labour charges and Rs. 500/- as less salvage value and the total assessed value for the damage is Rs. 13,500/-.
In the complaint it is stated that the complainant spent Rs. 40,500/- for the repairing charge to the vehicle and Rs. 14,846/- for purchasing the required spare parts. These original bills are submitted in the Insurance company. But in the last portion of the complaint it is stated only about the bill for Rs. 40,500/-. Complainant filed IA.539/11 for directing the opposite party to produce the original bill. In this application also complainant has not stated about the bill for Rs.14,846/- which is spent for purchasing the spare parts. So that this amount cannot be considered.
The definite case of the opposite party is that the bill produced by the complainant is manipulated. In order to prove the same no steps were taken. Opposite party has no case that the said work shop is not authorized. According to survey report the bill amount produced by the complainant is very high. But it is not proper to rely fully upon the survey report as the Surveyor is deputed by the Insurance company. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pradeep Kumar, The Apex Court has held the view that “ The approved surveyor's report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured”.
In this circumstances we are not in a position to make a conclusion that the bill produced by the complainant is an excessive one.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of receipt of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of December, 2011
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 – Cash Bill (copy) received from Tazz Tech Tipper Body Builders to the complainant dated 20/03/2011.
Ext. A2 – Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy schedule issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 12/07/2010.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext. B1 – Motor Survey Report (copy) furnished by the Insurance Surveyor to the complainant dated 19/04/2011.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 – Abdul Azeez
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
DW1 – Divakaran. K
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.
