Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/139/2015

M/s.Devadas Payyakkal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director , M/s.Shriram Genral Insurance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

G.Munendran

03 Jan 2023

ORDER

                                                                                                                                    Date of Complaint Filed : 20.03.2015

                                                                                                                                    Date of Reservation      : 21.12.2022

                                                                                                                                     Date of Order               : 03.01.2023

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,          :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 139 /2015

TUESDAY, THE 3^rdDAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

1. Mr. Devadas Payyakkal (Deceased),

 

2. Mrs. Devi Devadas,

    W/o Mr. Devadas Payyakkal,

    101/1C, Annamalai Avenue,

    Jaswanth Nagar, West Mogappair,

    Chennai-600 058.                                                                                                                          … Complainant

-Vs-

1. The Managing Director,

    Ms. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

    E-B, EPIP, RIICO; Sitapura, JAIPUR 302022.

 

2. The Manager,

    M/s Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

    No.21, Second Floor, Mookambika Complex,

    No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai-600 004

 

3. The General Manager,

    ITC Grand Chola,

    63, Mount Road, Guindy,

    Chennai-600 032.                                                                                                                     ...Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant                    : M/s. G. Munendran

Counsel for the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties   : M/s. Elveera Ravindran

Counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party             : Dismissed as Withdrawn

        On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainant the repair amount of Rs.7,15,000/- incurred on the Mercedes Benz E Class Sedan Car bearing Registration No.TN 02 AS 2352 and to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,325/- towards monthly EMI of Rs.55,465/- paid to bank for the last five months from the date of accident on 18.09.2014 and to pay a sum of Rs.3800/- to the Complainant incurred towards Towing Charges for the said car which was towed from the premises of 3^rdOpposite Party to the Authorised Benz service Centre at Ambattur and to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for the hardship and enormous mental agony caused to the Complainant, and for the unfair trade practice, negligence and gross deficiency in service along with cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant own a Mercedes Benz Sedan Tourist Car bearing Registration No TN 02 AS 2352 and had availed a Car Loan of Rs. 16 lakhs from HDFC Bank Ltd, against the above referred car. He had been paying an EMI OF Rs 55,565/- ever since he had availed the car loan. In order to have regular income from the said tourist car so as to meet his financial needs, he armed the car with necessary permits for tourist taxi purpose. The said car was insured with the 1^st Opposite Party and the certificate of Insurance was issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party, which is the Branch office of the 1^st Opposite Party.  The said car was regularly getting income to him with which he was able to meet the car loan availed with HDFC Bank until August 2014. During the course of its operations, on 18.09.2014, the said car was engaged by a guest of 3^rd Opposite Party. At about 11.30 pm on 18.09.2014, when the said car was entering the premises of the 3^rd Opposite Party with the guest of the 3^rd Opposite Party, it was stopped for security check at the entrance and thereafter given clearance to enter. When the said car was on the verge of crossing the security entrance after due clearance by the security staff of the 3^rd Opposite Party, the electronically operated heavy cylindrical ramps installed on the entrance floor, due to its malfunction, abruptly raised and hit the said car on the front side leading to heavy damage of the front of the car. Since the car had been insured with the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, hedeemed it fit to make insurance claim with the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The accident of the said car on 18.9.2014 caused at the premises of the 3^rd Opposite Party, the same has been intimated to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the said car remained in the complex of the 3^rdOpposite Party until 23.9.2014 and was towed to the Mercedes Benz Car Service centre Trans Car India Pvt., Ltd., at Ambattur at a cost of Rs.3,800/- after a thorough survey by the Surveyor of the 1^stand 2^nd Opposite Parties. The said Trans Car India Pvt., Ltd., estimated the repair charges to the tune of Rs.7,81,363/- vide its letter dated 25.9.2014 and accordingly thereafter, the Complainant filed a claim form with the 2^nd Opposite Party on 8.10.2014. Despite the genuineness of the accident, the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties have been delaying the settlement of the insurance claim on one pretext or other. He made it known to the 1^stand 2^nd Opposite Parties, that he had not received any kind of compensation from the 3^rd Opposite Parties. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, instead of settling his legitimate insurance claim made, the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties have been repeatedly demanding from him to get the Public Liability insurance policy of the 3^rd Opposite Party. Though there was no need for him to obtain the Public Insurance Liability Policy from the 3^rd Opposite Party, as it is a matter to be sorted out between them, he relentlessly pursued with the 3^rd Opposite Party to meet the demands of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties but in vain. The 3^rdOpposite Party for the reasons best known to it, is unwilling to part with the Public Liability Insurance Policy. Until the filing of this complaint before this Hon'ble Commission, none of the above Opposite Parties have chosen to settle his legitimate claim of the Car Insurance. Thus the unfair trade practice, coupled with gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the all the above Opposite Parties were causing him immense hardship and grave financial loss. He had suffered huge financial burden, as he has to pay his EMIs amounting to Rs. 55,465/- per month which he had been paying from the income generated from the said Tourist Car. But after the said accident which took place at the 3^rdOpposite Party's premises squarely due to the fault of the 3^rdOpposite Party continued to remain in the Service Centre until 02.02.2015. The non-operation of the said car which remained in the service centre at Ambattur until 02.02.2015 for want of settlement by the Opposite Parties, thus failed to generate any income during that period of five months. He had to borrow money from external sources and settled a discounted repair charges Rs.7,15,000.00 to M/s TransCars India Pvt. Ltd., on 02.02.2015 by D.D.015988 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., payable at Chennai and took delivery his Benz Car. He Complainant was severely put to grave financial hardship as he had to not only borrow money to release the car but also to pay his EMI without default to the Bank as any default to the bank would seriously affect his credibility besides the loss of his personal income. The unbearable sufferings, grave financial and monitory loss and enormous amount of mental agony undergone by him was entirely due to callous attitude, unfair trade practice, utter negligence and gross deficiency in service on the part of all the three Opposite Parties and hence all the three Opposite Parties above are jointly severally responsible for the immense hardship, enormous amount of mental agony, and huge loss of money, that arose in the aftermath of the above referred car accident. All these malafide and unlawful acts with ulterior motives on the part of the Opposite Parties thus to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of all the three Opposite parties, as envisaged under section 2 (1) (c) and 2 (1) (r) of Consumer Protection Act. He is a consumer as defined under Sections 2(1)(b) (1) and 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is not barred by the provisions of Section24 A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as he had insured his Mercedes Benz E Class Sedan Car bearing Registration No, TN 02 AS2352 against Premium of Rs.82228/- with the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties paid on 26.7.2014 and valid from 27.7.2014 to 26.7.2015 for a value of Rs 28 lakhs and on 18.9.2014 when the said car met with accident at the 3^rdOpposite Party's premises and on 23.9.2014 when the said car was towed away to Mercedes Benz Service Cent at Ambattur after the Surveyor of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties inspected the said car and on 8.10.2014 when the duly filled in insurance claim form was submitted to the 2^nd Opposite Party and on 22.1.2015 when the legal notices dated 14.1.2015 (inadvertently dated as 14.01.2014) was sent to all the three Opposite parties and on 24.1.2015 the said legal notice was acknowledged by the Third Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st and 2^ndOpposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

        The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case. The Complainant has not come with clean hands since he has been arrayed as the Complainant in the complaint, whereas in the verification both the Complainant and his wife have verified the complaint. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The Complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under the Consumer protection Act. The Opposite Parties puts the Complainant to strict proof of his allegation that he purchased Mercedes Benz Sedan Tourist car bearing Registration No. TN 02 AS2352 and that he had availed for finance from HDFC Bank Ltd., and was paying a EMI of Rs.55,565/- and is carrying on the business for profit and not for livelihood as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. They had issued a Certificate Cum Policy Schedule bearing 421010/31/15/004089 covering the period from 27.07.2014 to 26.07.2016 for the vehicle bearing No. TN 02 AS 2352. The contract of Insurance is a contract of “Uberrimae Fidei” where both the contracting parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. They deny the allegations that on 18.09.2014 while the said vehicle was engaged by a guest and at about 11.00pm on 18.09.2014 while the car was entering the premises of the 3^rdOpposite Party it was stopped for security check at the entrance by the security staff of the 3^rdOpposite Party and after getting the clearance to enter the premises said date and submits that while the car was crossing the security entrance after clearance, the electronically operated heavy cylindrical ramps installed on the entrance floor, due to its malfunction abruptly raised and hit the vehicle on the front side leading to the vehicle getting damaged. The Complainant was put to strict proof with regard to intimating the Opposite Party immediately and that the car was towed away from the premises of the 3^rdOpposite Party only on 23.09.2015. The Complainant has not disclosed why the vehicle was kept in the 3^rdOpposite Party premises from 18.09.2015 to 23.09.2015. In any event as per the terms and conditions of the policy the Complainant ought to have exercised abundant care and caution which he had failed to do. The Complainant on his own had arranged for the repair and the repair charges amounted to a sum of Rs.7,81,363/- by M/s Trans Car India Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice to their rights, even according to the Complainant the 3^rdOpposite Party is the tort feasor who is solely responsible for the alleged accident. Hence the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are entitled to the details called for in order to process the claim. As the indemnifier they are entitled to recover the amount if any paid against any claim if otherwise found to be in order. However in the present claim the Complainant for reasons best known to him failed to intimate them immediately on the knowledge of the alleged loss, which he had failed to do. Hence on the intimation of the claim to them, had appointed an independent surveyor to conduct a spot survey and sent letter dated 24.07.2014 intimating to the Complainant about his lethargy. Further vide letter dated 09.12.2015 the Opposite Parties called upon the Complainant to produce the following mandatory documents of Proof of accident web cam recording at entry security check (video record), Clarification from TTC Chola regarding accident and ITC Chola (Hotel)-Liability Policy. The said documents were to be submitted within 5 days from the receipt of the letter, which the Complainant failed to submit. They sent a reminder letter dated 18.12.2014 to the Complainant since no documents were forthcoming as called for. They had sent a final reminder dated 07.01.2015 to the Complainant called for the mandatory documents which in spite of the receipt of all the letters the Complainant failed to submit the documents. In spite of the repeated reminders the Complainant did not produce the documents, and hence as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the Opposite Parties sent the closure letter dated 19.01.2015 clearly intimating to the Complainant that the said claim was being closed as 'No Claim’ on the basis of non submission of the above mentioned documents. Owing to the lethargy and indifferent attitude adopted by the Complainant within the stipulated time, the claim had to be closed as "No claim'. Hence they were diligent in discharging their duties and had sent repeated reminders to the Complainant, who had not bothered to fulfil. The allegations that he had suffered any mental tension and that there was any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party as alleged since were denied. They had duly discharged their duty immediately and on the basis of the documents of the case and the application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case had closed the claim for non submission of documents. The Complainant is put to strict proof of the allegations regarding the heavy loss of income alleged to have been suffered by him and in any event they were not liable for the same. The Complainant is well aware that this court does not have any jurisdiction to award any payment under speculative heads. There is no deficiency of service on their part, and no claim is payable much less the claim for Rs.7,15,000/- towards the repair charges; the sum of Rs.2,77,325/- towards monthly EMI, a sum of Rs.3,800/- towards towing charges and a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for alleged mental agony, and costs. In the absence of any deficiency of service on their part and unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant has no cause of action and this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. There was no liability on their part. Without prejudice to their rights that on the intimation of the incident, a spot survey and a final survey was conducted and the net loss assessed for the repairs was Rs.3,71,447/- which was not payable since the Complainant did not submit the documents called for and hence had violated claim. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.  The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-23  were marked. The Opposite Parties  submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties Ex. B-1 to Ex.B-7 were marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

4. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point Nos.1 and 2:-

It is an undisputed fact that the Original Complainant, namely Mr.Devadas Payyakkal (Deceased) was the owner of Mercedes Benz Car bearing Registration No. TN 02 AS 2352 and the Insurance Policy in respect of the said car was taken with the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party on 26.07.2014 with a validity period from 27.07.2014 to 26.07.2015.

The present Complainant, Mrs. Devi Devadas being the legal  heir and wife of the original Complainant, Mr. Devadas Payyakkal (Deceased), was impleaded as Complainant by order dated 23.01.2020 passed in C.M.P. No.217 of 2019 by this Commission.

The disputed facts are that the subject vehicle of the Complainant on 18.09.2014 at about 11.30pm while entering the 3^rd Opposite Party’s Hotel (ITC Grand Chola Hotel) with a guest of the 3^rd opposite Party, was stopped for security check and after clearance while crossing the security check, electronically operated heavy cylindrical ramps installed on the entrance floor due to its malfunction abruptly raised and hit the subject vehicle on the front side leading to heavy damage to the front side of the subject vehicle. Immediately after the accident, the same was intimated to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the subject vehicle remained in the 3^rd Opposite Party’s premises from 18.09.2014 to 23.09.2014 and thereafter the subject vehicle was towed from there to the Service Centre at Ambattur. The repairs of the subject vehicle of the complainant was estimated on 25.09.2014 at Rs.7,81,363/- and thereafter Claim Form was submitted to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 08.10.2014. After submission of the said claim form, the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties insisted him to provide Public Insurance Liability Policy of the 3^rd Opposite Party which in spite of his efforts the 3^rd Opposite Party had not provided the same to him, though he is not liable and responsible to produce the same when he had insured the subject vehicle with the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties had failed to settle the Legitimate Claim of the Complainant, which resulted him to suffer monetary loss apart from mental agony, by clearing the repair charges of Rs.7,15,000/- after negotiation from Rs.7,81,363/-, to the service centre by way of Demand Draft by obtaining loan from external sources and also to pay the EMI’S to the Bank without committing default as the subject vehicle remained in the service centre till 02.02.2015 without generating any income. Further it was contended that though it has been intimated by the 3^rd Opposite Party to the 2^nd Opposite Party that they had not paid any compensation to the Complainant with regard to the accident that took place on 18.09.2014 at their place, his claim was closed as “No Claim” for non-submission of the documents pertaining to the 3^rd Opposite Party, as he is no way liable or responsible to provide/produce the same, further it is the duty of the Insurer to enquire about the genuinity of the accident and thereafter to settle the claim.

The Contentions of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 were that the Complainant is not a consumer, as he is carrying on business for profit and not for livelihood. The nature of occurrence of accident, intimation about the accident and the subject vehicle was kept in the 3^rd Opposite Party’s premises from 18.09.2014 to 23.09.2014 has to be proved. The repairs of the subject vehicle had been carried out on his own by the Complainant. Immediately after intimation of the claim they had appointed an independent surveyor to conduct a spot survey and sent a letter dated 24.07.2014 intimating about Complainant’s lethargy. As the Complainant had failed to produce the mandatory documents that were called for from the Complainant, in spite of their letter dated 09.12.2014 and several reminders, the claim was closed as “No Claim” on 19.01.2015. They have duly discharged their duty and there was no deficiency of service on their part and no unfair trade practice committed by them. The Complainant had to prove about his monetary loss and mental agony suffered, as the net loss assessed at Rs.3,71,447/- for carrying out the repairs of the Complainant’s vehicle, on the final report of their surveyor.

On submissions made and on perusal of exhibits marked on both sides, it is clear from Ex.A-3 and Ex.B-1, the Insurance Policy No. 421010/31/15/004089 dated 26.07.2014, the subject vehicle was insured with the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party for the period from 27.07.2014 to 26.07.2015 on payment of premium of Rs.82,228/- for IDV of Rs.28,00,000/-. It is also clear from Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2, the subject vehicle was registered in the name of Payyakkal Devadas as a Tourist Motor Cab/Taxi in the year 2011. Thus by the Contract of Insurance entered into between the Complainant and the Opposite parties 1 and 2,  though it was contended by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 that the subject vehicle is used for commercial purpose it was not for the livelihood of the Complainant, the averments made in the Complaint shows that the subject vehicle fetches income to meet out the financial needs of the Complainant would impliedly amounts that the subject vehicle is used for the livelihood of the Complainant and clearly establishes that the Complainant is a Consumer. Further, the Judgement relied upon by the Complainant reported in  IV (2022) CPJ 407 (NC) order passed by NCDRC in C.C.No.908 of 2016 on 24.05.2022 in Prabhu Dayal Trilok Chand (Through its Partner) Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Another, wherein it was observed that, following the earlier order passed in Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, reported in I (2005) CPJ 26 (NC) that “the Complaint was maintainable as contract of Insurnce is contract of indemnity, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage, Complainant is a consumer”. Hence the said order is applicable to come to a conclusion that the Complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable.

It also clear from Ex.A-9 Online intimation sent to the 1^st Opposite Party that the subject vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident on 18.09.2014 at 11pm at 3^rd Opposite Party’s premises (complaint against 3^rd Opposite Party was dismissed as withdrawn by the Complainant on 25.06.2015), namely ITC Grand Chola Hotel. It is also clear from Ex.B-3 Letter dated 24.09.2014 sent by the 1^st opposite Party to the Complainant, wherein the date of intimation about the accident was found to be reported on 19.09.2014 itself, further it was mentioned in Ex.B-3 that “ this is to inform you that you have intimated the claim to us on the date specified above and we had appointed a surveyor for spot survey. But till date you have not approached for final survey to us. You are requested to shift the damaged vehicle to nearest garage and confirm to us with the estimate so that we may appoint the surveyor for assessment of the loss. We  expect  your reply  within  7  days  of  the  receipt  of this

letter, failing which we will presume that you are not interested to pursue the claim.” Hence from B-3 it is clear that the accident that took place on 18.09.2014 was intimated on 19.09.2014 itself and a surveyor by name M/s.Libra Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt Ltd was appointed for spot survey as well as the Complainant was requested to shift the damaged vehicle to nearest garage. Thus the contentions raised by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 with regard to the nature of accident, intimation about the accident and subject vehicle kept in ITC Grand Chola Hotel from 18.09.2014 to 23.04.2019 has been proved by the Complainant. And the contention raised by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 with regard to the repairs of the subject vehicle was done by the Complainant of his own, is not sustainable. Further the Contentions raised by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 with regard to the monetary loss sustained by the Complainant on the aspect of EMI to be paid under the Loan and loss of income sustained due to accident, it is proved by the Complainant by Exs.A-4, 5 and 7. Further the contentions raised by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 with regard to non submission of mandatory documents of Proof of accident web cam recording at entry security check (video record), Clarification from TTC Chola regarding accident and ITC Chola (Hotel)-Liability Policy, from Exs.A -14, 17, 19, being the mails sought for the documents required by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and Ex.A-18 Letter addressed to 2^nd Opposite Party by ITC Grand Chola it was informed that no payment of compensation was made in respect of the accident of the subject vehicle took place on 18.09.2014 and by reply to the mail dated 26.11.2014 sent by the 2^nd Opposite Party to ITC Grand Chola, ITC Grand Chola had replied that the letter as required was shared and they cannot share further information. Further from Ex.A-23 Receipt dated 02.02.2015 issued by Trans Car India Pvt Ltd along with the Demand Draft drawn from HDFC Bank for Rs.7,15,000/- clearly establishes the repair costs spent by the Complainant. Further, though it was contended that a spot survey was arranged and on final survey report the loss was assessed at Rs.3,71,447/-, to substantiate the same no surveyor report has been produced before this Commission.

The following Judgements relied upon by the Complainant;

1. Reported in I (2022) CPJ 87 (SC), Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.6778 of 2013 on 09.12.2021 in Jacob Punnen & Another Vs. United  India Insurance Co. Ltd, wherein it was dealt about the duty of the Insurer to disclose any changes in terms and conditions to the Insured, which is not applicable to the instant case.

(ii) Reported in I (2022) CPJ 237 (NC), order passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.843 of 2016 on 03.01.2022 in IFFCI TOKIO GIC LTD Vs ANIL, wherein it was dealt that vehicle Insured as private vehicle used for hire, which was in violation of policy conditions, hence the claim to be settled by the Insurer on non standard basis, which is not applicable to the instant case.

On discussions made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 as an Insurer are duty bound to enquire into the accident that took place on 18.09.2014 to the subject vehicle and to collect necessary records/documents in respect of the claim made by the Insured/Complainant, instead insisting the insured to provide the documents of a third party, in spite of having provided the required letter sought by the 2^nd Opposite Party and having denied to share other documents by the third party to the 2^nd Opposite Party, the rejection of claim made by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 on the ground of non submission of the documents of the third party, is not legally sustainable. Hence the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had acted negligently in rejecting the legitimate claim of the Complainant, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Accordingly Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

Point Nos. 3 and 4 :-

As discussed and decided Point Nos. 1 and 2 against the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the repair amount of Rs.7,15,000/- incurred on Mercedes Benz E Class Sedan Car bearing Registration No.TN 02 AS 2352 covered under Insurance Policy No.421010/31/15/004089, also liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service, mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the Complainant along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly Point Nos. 3 and 4 are answered.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay the repair amount of Rs.7,15,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh and Fifteen Thousand Only) incurred on Mercedes Benz E Class Sedan Car bearing Registration No.TN 02 AS 2352 covered under Insurance Policy No.421010/31/15/004089, also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service, mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the Complainant along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of Rs.7,15,000/- shall carry interest @9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realization.

          In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 3^rd of January 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	24.08.2013	Registration Certificate of Benz car bearing Regn No. TN 02 AS 2352
Ex.A2	24.08.2013	Tourist taxi permit for Benz car issued by the R.T.O
Ex.A3	26.07.2014	Certificate cum policy issued by the 1stOpposite Party for the Benz Car
Ex.A4	28.04.2014	Car Loan Disbursal advice to Complainant by HDFC Bank
Ex.A5	07.01.2015	HDFC Bank Statement on payment of Instalments by the Complainant
Ex.A6	18.09.2014	Proof of guest of 3rdOpposite Party engaging the car
Ex.A7	30.09.2014	Complainant’s Agent statement of Account on payment made to Complainant
Ex.A8	-	Photo copy of Electrical Ramps at the Security Entrance of 3rdOpposite Party
Ex.A9	-	Accident intimation form submitted to the 2ndOpposite Party
Ex.A10	23.09.2014	Car towing charges paid to Recovery & crane service agency
Ex.A11	-	Driver’s licence
Ex.A12	25.09.2014	Estimate of cost of repairs for the damaged car by the Authorised Mercedes Bens Car Service Centre
Ex.A13	08.10.2014	Insurance claim form submitted to the 2ndOpposite Party
Ex.A14	06.11.2014	Email to Complainant’s agent by the 2ndOpposite Party
Ex.A15	06.11.2014	Internal email between 3rdOpposite Party staff
Ex.A16	18.12.2014	Letter from the 1stOpposite Party
Ex.A17	-	Letter sent to 3rdOpposite Party by the Complainant’s Agent
Ex.A18	-	Letter from 3rdOpposite Party to the 2ndOpposite Party
Ex.A19	-	Emails sent by Complainant’s agent to the 3rdOpposite Party seeking to share Public Liability Insurance Policy of 3rdOpposite Party
Ex.A20	-	Email sent by 3rd Opposite Party refusing to share Public Liability Insurance Policy
Ex.A21	14.01.2015	Legal notices sent to all the Opposite Parties by the Complainant
Ex.A22	24.01.2015	Acknowledgement card from the 3rdOpposite Party
Ex.A23	02.02.2015	Copy of the D.D issued to M/s Transcar India Pvt Ltd Rs.7,15,000

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties:-

Ex.B1	-	Policy of Insurance
Ex.B2	-	Terms and conditions of the Policy of Insurance
Ex.B3	24.09.2014	Letter sent by Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.B4	09.12.2014	Letter sent by Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.B5	18.12.2014	Letter sent by Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.B6	07.01.2015	Letter sent by Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.B7	19.01.2015	Letter sent by Opposite Parties to the Complainant

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT