Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

118/2014

J.R.Vijayachandran,S/o.J.A.Balachandran,M/s.Rishin & Co, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The manager,United India Insurance company ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

L.Prabhakar

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on  :  19.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  29.07.2015

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 29^th  DAY OF JULY  2015

 

C.C.NO.118/2014

 

 

J.R.Vijayachandran,

S/o J.A Balachandran,

M/S Rishin & Co.,

5/3 Maldoom Sheriff Street,

Barracks Road, Periamet,

Chennai – 03.                                                                   ..  Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ld., No.21 Raja Annamalai Road, Purasaiwakkam Chennai 600 084.   2. The Manager, Motor OD service Hub, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sudarsan Building “II” Floor, Old No 14 New No 27 Whites Road, Chennai 600 014.
	…..Opposite  Parties

Date of complaint                                     : 24.06.2014

Counsel for Complainant                          :L.Prabhar

Counsel for 1st & 2nd  Opposite party         : Ex parte

 

O R D E R

 

BY TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II

 

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLANT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is the owner of TATA ACE, HT GOODS CARRIER VEHICLE  bearing registration no.TN 07-BE-0660. The Complainant used the vehicle as a public carrier and also insured with the opposite parties package policy for the period 04.10.2012 to 03.10.2013. The Complainant parked his vehicle nearby his office and found that on 12.07.2013 the right side front tyre & wheel was stolen.  Immediately the Complainant filed a complaint at Vepery Police Station on 13.07.2013. The police reported that the tyre & wheel could not be traced. The Complainant made a claim based on the policy as the theft of tyre and wheel covered under the policy. The opposite party refused to receive the claim made by the Complainant for a sum of Rs.5,300/- towards cost of the tyre & wheel. Hence the Complainant filed this complaint for the cost of the tyre & wheel and for compensation for mental agony suffered by him.

          2.The opposite parties though entered appearance through their counsel, they did not file written version and hence they were set ex parte.

          3.The Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked.

 

 

4.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

5.POINT:1

          The Complainant is the owner of the TATA ACE GOODS CARRIER VEHICLE bearing registration no. TN  07-BE-0660. The said vehicle insured with the opposite parties for the period 04.10.2012 to 03.10.2013 which is evidenced by Ex.A1 policy. The Complainant parked the vehicle nearby his office and on 12.07.2013 he found that the right side tyre & wheel was stolen.  Immediately next day he gave a complaint to the Vepery Police Station and they have also  issued Ex.A3 certificate that they could not  trace the stolen tyre & wheel. There is no contra evidence on behalf of the opposite parties. Hence the Complainant proved that the right side tyre & wheel of his vehicle was stolen.

          6.Ex A1 policy provides to indemnify the  insured for loss or damage even for theft. When the Complainant made claim his tyre & wheel was stolen the opposite parties refused to entertain his claim even though they have to indemnify the loss by way of theft as per the policy issued by them. Therefore the opposite parties 1 & 2 committed deficiency in service by refusing the claim made by the complainant.

7.POINT:2

          According to the Complaint value of the wheel including tyre is Rs.5,300/-  In the absence of contra evidence the same is accepted that the value  of the wheel lost by him is fixed at Rs.5,300/- and he is entitled for such amount from the opposite parties 1 & 2. Though the opposite parties are liable to indemnify as per the policy in force and they refused to entertain the claim of the Complainant caused mental agony to him is accepted and for such mental agony it would be appropriate to order to a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards  litigation expenses to be payable by the opposite parties to the complainant.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,300/- (Rupees five thousand and three hundred only)  jointly or severally towards the cost of the tyre and wheel and also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards  compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The above   amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 29^th   day of July 2015.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated  NIL                Policy

Ex.A2 dated 13.07.2013      CSR Receipts

Ex.A3 dated   25.07.2013             Non traceable certificate

Ex.A4 dated 21.08.2013               Notice to opposite parties

Ex.A5 dated   NIL                         Acknowledgement /Due

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT