Kerala

Wayanad

CC/08/163

Saji Varghese.K,S/o.Vaghese.K,Keerikkattil House,Cheerral P.O,S.Bathery - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Bajaj Alliance Insurance Com.Ltd,Police Station Road ,S. Bathery - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WayanadConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad
CONSUMER CASE NO. 08 of 163
1. Saji Varghese.K,S/o.Vaghese.K,Keerikkattil House,Cheerral P.O,S.BatheryKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The Manager,Bajaj Alliance Insurance Com.Ltd,Police Station Road ,S. BatheryKerala2. The Manager,Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Com.Ltd,3rd Floor,Finance Tower,CochinEranakulamKerala3. The Manager,Registred& Head office,G.E.Plaza,Yerwada,Pune-411006PuneMaharashtra ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 27 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

O R D E R


 

By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:


 

The gist of the case is as follows:-


 

The Complainant's vehicle Maruthi Omini 1999 Model bearing No. PY 01M8946 was insured with the Opposite party's insurance company as full cover insurance for an amount of Rs.90,000/-.


 

2. The vehicle met with an accident on 11.01.2008 and was transferred to the service centre for repairing works. The Complainant filed a claim with the Opposite Parties as claim No. OC-08-1602-1801-00003648. The Maruthi Service Centre made a quotation for repairing works amounting to Rs.1,02,000/-. Three months after claiming the insurance, the Opposite Parties sent two registered notice to the Complainant which he could not accept as he was not at station. On 03.06.2008 the 2nd Opposite Party sent a registered lawyer notice repudiating the claim because of non acceptance of the prior notices. But, as the reply to a lawyer notice sent by the Complainant, the Opposite Party expressed their willingness to pay Rs.46,541/- after completion of the repairing works. The Complainant sent a lawyer notice stating that he is not ready to accept this amount. After receiving this letter, the Opposite Parties did not send any reply or settle the claim. Hence the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the insured amount in full and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.


 

3. The Opposite Parties filed their version admitting the policy and the matter of accident. But the Opposite Parties deny that the expense for repairing amounts to Rs.1,02,000/-. The Opposite Party's surveyor had assessed the damaged at Rs.46,541/-. Showing this fact and requesting the Complainant to submit all the bills after getting the vehicle repaired, the Opposite Party sent a letter to the Complainant. Since there was no response to this letter, the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim. Then following a letter from the Complainant, the Opposite Parties offered to pay the claim as per the assessment of the Surveyor. There was no delay in processing the claim. As the Complainant has not repaired the vehicle, the Opposite Party is not in a position to settle the claim. So the Opposite Parties pray for an order dismissing the complaint.

4. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A5 on the part of the Complainant. An Expert Commissioner was appointed by the Forum to assess the damages of the vehicle and the Commission report was marked as Ext.C1. The Opposite Party produced documents upon the order of the Forum and they were marked as Ext.X1(a) to X1(e). The Opposite Party and one witness were examined as OPW1 and OPW2. No documents were marked on the side of the Opposite Party.


 

5. The matters to be decided are:-

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

  2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief.


 

6. Point No1:- The Complainant's case is that his vehicle is totally lost and cannot be repaired with the amount offered by the Opposite Parties. The Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party had estimated the loss at Rs.92,746.19 and recommended Rs.47,541.79 a much less amount than the estimated amount. He has not shown the reason for such a reduction. The ruling of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cited in 2010 CTJ 147 points out that the Surveyor being an expert in the field, is expected to give reasons for disallowing or partly disallowing the claim. In this case no such explanation is given by the Surveyor. The estimate given by Maruthi Service Centre for repairing is for Rs. 1,02,000/-. The Commissioner appointed by the Forum has assessed the repairing expense at Rs.1,04,675/-. The Opposite Party has not filed any objection to the Commission Report. So, it is clear that the Opposite Parties have processed the claim arbitrarily. Hence the point No.1 is decided against the Opposite Party.

7. Point No.2:- The Commissioner has assessed the repairing charges at Rs.1,04,675/-. It is very clear that the vehicle cannot be repaired with Rs.47,541/- which the Opposite Parties have offered. The vehicle is insured for Rs.90,000/-. The Complainant is entitled to get the full amount of insurance.


 

Therefore, the Opposite Parties are directed to pay the Complainant the full insurance amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only) within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay an interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the insurance amount from the date of complaint till payment.


 


 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 27th February 2010.


 


 

PRESIDENT: Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 


 

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

Nil

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. (Chief Affidavit filed by 3rd Opposite Party)

OPW2. Jeevan. K.V. Insurance Surveyor.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 series (2 numbers) Copy of Lawyer Notice.

A2. Acknowledgment.

A3. Copy of Letter. dt:03.06.2008.

A4. Lawyer Notice.

A4 (1) series. (2 numbers) Acknowledgment card and Receipt.

A5. Letter. dt:22.07.2008.

C1. Commission Report. dt:16.09.2009.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

X1 (a) Copy of Certificate Cum Policy Schedule.

X1 (b) (5 sheets) Copy of Motor Survey Report (Final). dt:15.05.2008.

X1(c) Copy of Letter. dt:13.05.2008.

X1(d) Copy of Letter. dt:03.06.2008.

X1(e) Final Claim Cost Confirmation for Dealer.

 

 


HONORABLE SAJI MATHEW, MemberHONABLE JUSTICE K GHEEVARGHESE, PRESIDENTHONORABLE P Raveendran, Member