IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2016
Filed on 09.04.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.117/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Dr. P. Padmakumar The Manager
Thachankattil Veedu National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Perumanthazha Muri Kayamkulam Branch
Clappana Village Kayamkulam
Vavavila P.O. (By Adv. T.S. Suresh)
(By Adv. R. Ullas)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant was a registered owner of Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.KL 1 AE 5646. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party and opposite party issued a policy for a period from 5.1.2014 to 4.1.2015. As per the policy the IDV Value of the vehicle was fixed at the rate of Rs.81,000/-. On 9.3.2014 while the complainant was travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Kottarakkara the vehicle unexpectedly skid and hit on a 11 KV electric post situated on the eastern side of the road causing serious damages to the vehicle and electric post. After the accident the vehicle was taken to the Hercules Service Centre. The complainant was requested by the KSEB to remit the amount for replacing electric post and reestablish the electric connection. Complainant remitted the amount to the KSEB under the direction of the opposite party that amount will be reimbursed since his vehicle had a valid insurance coverage. Complainant demanded the opposite party to take the vehicle for scrap value, but they were not ready to take the vehicle. Hence the complainant forced to sale the vehicle for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The opposite party is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.51,000/- after taking scrap value from the IDV of the vehicle. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.14,768/- remitted by the complainant to the KSEB. But the opposite party repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
Opposite party issued a package policy with respect to the car owned by the complainant w.e.f. 5.1.2014 to 4.1.2015. Complainant has no authority to make payment to the KSEB and claimed reimbursement, since there is no written consent. The complainant never demanded to the opposite party to take the wreck as alleged. The averment that the complainant had sold the wreck for Rs.30,000/- is not correct. The opposite party is not liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant. Since the complainant does not want to repair the vehicle, opposite party offered assessment on the basis of the salvage loss of Rs.40,000/-. But the complainant claimed Rs.95,758/- and complain7 could not settle the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The Complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. The opposite party was examined as RW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B9. Ext.B7 marked subject to objection.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party issued a policy to the vehicle owned by the complainant w.e.f. 5.1.2014 to 4.1.2015. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle involved in an accident and thereby caused damage to the vehicle. According to the complainant the vehicle hit to 11 KV electric post and that caused serious damages to the electric post and he paid Rs.14,768/- to the KSEB under the belief that the amount will be reimbursed from the opposite party. The opposite party denied this allegation stating that as per the condition No.2 of the policy, “No admission offer promise payment or indemnify shall be made or given by or on behalf of the insured without written consent of the Company.” Since there is no written consent of the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to claim refund of the amount paid to the KSEB. According to the opposite party complainant is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- on the basis of salvage loss. As per Ext.B3 the I.D.V (Insured Declared Value) of the vehicle is Rs.81,000/-. Complainant produced the sale agreement which marked as Ext.A3. It shows that complainant sold the vehicle for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. According to the opposite party the wreck of the vehicle worth more than Rs.40,000/- as assessed by the Surveyor. But it is not proved by the opposite party. From the evidence on record, it is clear that complainant is entitled to get compensation based on I.D.V. of the vehicle as stated in the policy. Since the wreck value has been collected by the complainant, he is entitled to get only Rs.51,000/- after deducting the wreck value from the I.D.V. The denial on the part of the opposite party in paying the said amount amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.51,000/-
(Rupees fifty one thousand only) [Rs.81,000 – 30,000] with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings. Since the primary relief is granted no further amount is allowed as compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Dr. P. Padmakumar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the letter dated 10.3.2014
Ext.A2 - Copy of the motor claim form
Ext.A3 - Copy of the vehicle sale agreement
Ext.A4 - Registered letter dated 30.12.2014
Ext.A5 series - Receipts of KSEB (5 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - K. Sreekumar (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Attested true copy of the consent letter dated 19.5.2014
Ext.B2 - Attested true copy of the consent letter dated 15.1.2015
Ext.B3 - Certified copy of insurance cum policy schedule
Ext.B4 - Attested true copy of Motor Survey final report
Ext.B5 - Attested true copy of the registered letter dated 8.12.2014
Ext.B6 - Attested true copy of the registered letter dated 30.12.2014
Ext.B7 - Attested true copy of the letter dated 30.1.2015
Ext.B8 - Attested true copy of the registered letter dated 11.3.2015
Ext.B9 - Attested true copy of the quotation dated 8.4.2014
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
