CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 24th day of June 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 29/01/2014
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC/15/2014
Leela Peter,
1/153, Chirambathu House,
Panniankara,
Palakkad – 678 001. : Complainant
(By Adv.Vince MJ & Adv. Nisha Augustian)
Vs
1.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Micro Office, Palakkad,
Rep.by Micro Officer In Charge
K. Jayaprakash, AR Mall, Court Road,
Alathur, Palakkad – 678 541
: Opposite parties
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by The Managing Director,
New India Assurance Building ,
87 MG Road, Fort Mumbai – 400 001.
(By Adv. T. Giri)
O R D E R
By Smt. Shiny. P. R. Member.
Brief facts of the complaint: - The complainant is the registered owner of the KL 49/B 3420 Bolero Pick Up Van. The complainant bought the vehicle exclusively for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self employment. The complainant has insured the vehicle with the opposite parties vide policy No. 76110031120100026749 for the period from 3-11-2012 to 2-11-2013. On 15-2-2013 while the vehicle was parked in front of Dayana Hotel at Vadakkenchery, a bus which was plying from Thrissur to Palakkad direction hit in front of the Pickup van. Due to that accident the vehicle was totally damaged. The vehicle was repaired by ITL Motors Pvt Ltd. Palakkad. Complainant paid Rs. 36,011/- for labour charges, Rs. 2,03,335/- for parts, Rs. 8,500/- for towing charge and Rs. 225/- for taking photographs. Complainant submitted that she is entitled to get a claim of Rs. 2,48,071/- from the opposite parties. On 19-2-13 she filed a claim form before the 1st opposite party . But on 18-6-13 they allowed an amount of Rs. 1,49,480/- towards the claim. Due to the financial crisis the complainant had to accept the money transferred by the 1st opposite party after expressing her objection. Complainant further submitted that with holding of claim amount without explaining the reasons for the same is amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant filed complaint for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 98,591/- to the complainant along with 12% interest from 19-2-13 till realization, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards mental agony and torture and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of services on the part of the opposite parties.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. Opposite parties admitted the policy and accident and submitted as follows:- Opposite parties submitted that the complainant has already received the compensation as full and final settlement without any protest. So the present complaint for higher amount is not maintainable. As per the terms and conditions of the policy for all rubber, nylon, plastics, tyre, tubes , batteries and airbags 50% depreciation from actual bill amount. For fiber glass component depreciation is 30% and all other parts making in full glass insured is entitled to get full amount without any depreciation. The rate of depreciation for all other spare parts including wooden parts on the basis of age of the vehicle. In this case manufacturing year of the vehicle is 2010 and accident was happened in the year 2013.The age of the vehicle is exceeding 2 years but not exceeding 3 years. So on that basis all the spare parts and wooden parts depreciation as per terms of the policy is 15%. This opposite parties granted Rs. 1,49,480/- as compensation for damages and opposite parties has transferred the amount through NEFT to complainant’s account as full and final settlement. After receipt and withdrawal of the said amount the present complaint filed is without any bonafides and it has to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their chief affidavits. Ext. A1 to Ext. A7 were marked on the side of Complainant and Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 were marked on the side of opposite parties.
The following issues are to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
Heard both parties: - We have perused the documents on record. The opposite parties admitted the policy and accident. The main contention raised by the Opposite parties is that the complainant has already received the compensation as full and final settlement without any protest. But no evidence is adduced by the opposite parties to prove that the complainant received the claim amount as full and final settlement. Complainant produced the bill Ext. A3 in respect of the repairs of the vehicle clearly indicates that he had spent Rs. 2,48,071/- apart from additional charges of Rs. 8,500/-for towing the vehicle. The surveyor had inspected the vehicle and had concluded that the loss was only Rs. 1,49,480/-. Surveyor had substantially reduced the labour charge from Rs.36,011/- to Rs.19,300/-. In respect of labour charges without any plausible reason the amount has been reduced to the tune of Rs. 19,300/-. The documents submitted by the complainant indicating the repairs done carries more credibility than the surveyor’s report because it clearly indicates the item-wise damage caused to the vehicle as also the cost of repairs. Surveyor has disallowed cost of shock absorber , radiator assembly, wheel bearing spindle, intermediate shaft, assy fender RH CEd and Frt door assy. Towing charges allowed by opposite parties is Rs. 1,500/-. Accident met at Vadakkenchery which is nearly 34 Km away from the service station. Rs. 1,500/- is sufficient for towing the vehicle from Vadakkanchery to Palakkad. Withholding the claim amount without any reason is amounts to deficiency in service. In such circumstances it would be appropriate to allow Rs. 15,000/- in addition to amount already allowed by the opposite parties.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence we allow the complaint partly. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with Rs. 1,000/- ( Rupees One Thousand only) as cost.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 24th day of June 2014.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Original copy of Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of insurance Policy No.
76110031110100021480.
Ext.A2- Copy of Collection Receipt Cum Adjustment Voucher dated 01/11/2012
Ext.A3 - Original copy of Retail Invoice issued by the ITL Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Ext.A4- Copy of bill issued by Greeshma Engineering works dated 18/02/2013
Ext.A5 - Copy of bill issued by Cherus Photo Graphers & Video Graphers dated
16/02/2013
Ext.A6- Copy of Motor Accident Claim Intimation dated 18/02/2013
Ext.A7- Copy of Certificate issued by SI of Police Vadakkenchery dated 16/02/2013.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1- True copy of Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance No.
76110031110100021480.
Ext.B2- Original Survey Report issued by A.V. Babu.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceeding.
