DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.106/2008

Pramod Das,

S/o.K.Ramakrishnan,

Korath House,

Kazhani,

Kavasseri Post,

Alathur Taluk,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.M.R.Manikantan) - Complainant

Vs

1. M/s.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office,

N.S.Towers,

Near Stadium Bus Stand,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.Devadas.P.K)

2. M/s.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Head Office,

The New India Assurance Building,

87-M.G.Road,

Fort,

Mumbai 400001.

(By Adv.Devadas.P.K)

3. M/s.Bajaj Alliance Finance Ltd.,

Akurdi,

Pune,

Maharashtra. - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

The brief case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant is an insured of his motorcycle bearing Regn. No.KL9/Q2823 with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Policy No.152600/31/155354 is valid from 12.01.2006 to 11.01.2007. During the period of coverage of insurance policy, complainant met with an accident on 29.12.2006. Alathur Police has registered a crime as No.517/2006 against the driver of the offended Maruthi Omni Van. As a result of the accident the complainant had sustained very serious fatal injuries and had undergone nine surgeries on his body and he was completely bed ridden for about six months. After recovering from injuries, the complainant preferred a claim for Rs.17,023/- with all relevant documents required to be submitted by the opposite parties. The vehicle was duly inspected by the officer appointed by the opposite party and submitted report. Complainant alleges that even after completing the entire formalities required and directed to be done by him, the opposite parties has not attended the claim. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party in person several times in spite of his abnormal physical disability to move on. He submits that he was asked to contact their Regional Office at Pune and submit a representation again with all relevant documents. He made a representation to the Regional Office. Again he contacted the 1^st opposite party vide letter dtd.28.01.08 for which he received a letter dtd.30.01.08 stating that the documents have been forwarded to the Regional Office at Pune for early settlement. He had contacted the 1^st opposite party and their Regional Office at Pune several times. But in spite of repeated reminders, opposite parties has not taken decision in the matter.

Further complainant preferred a complaint to the Grievance Cell of the 2^nd

opposite party on 29.07.08 for which the complainant received a reply dtd.13.08.08 that they were initiating action in the matter, but it did not evoke any response so far. The attitude of the opposite parties and their men in the above said manner clearly reflects their un-pragmatic approach in the matter and is otherwise unwarranted. The complainant alleges that the above acts of opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service as they had intentionally neglected to render necessary assistance and service to the complainant in time. Complainant had suffered mental tension and agony in addition to huge financial loss due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties. Complainant submits that the opposite parties are solely responsible for the hardship, loss of time and energy caused to him. Complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.18,011/- being the amount spent for repairing the motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

Opposite parties filed their version contending the following. They admit the fact that the motorcycle KL9/Q2823 was insured with their company. Opposite parties submit that the 1^st opposite party received the survey report only on 28.01.08 and the same was forwarded to their Pune branch on 31.08.2008 and opposite parties have not wasted time in the matter at any time. The company surveyor has assessed the approximate net loss sustained by the complainant and submitted report. Surveyor has prepared the bill check report which is the final assessment done on the basis of which the net insurer's liability is fixed Rs.12,223/-. This amount was given

to 3^rd opposite party, the financier of the complainant, by 2^nd opposite party who inturn paid this amount by cheque to the complainant by post. Complainant has received this amount as full and final settlement and collected the amount. As such this complaint has become infructuous. Complainant has not undergone any mental tension and agony, suffered any financial loss, under gone any hardship or lost any time and energy. Opposite parties submit that there is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on their part. Further the opposite parties contended that the complainant does not come under the purview of the definition of consumer. As they are not liable to pay any interest, this complaint has to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite parties.

Complainant filed affidavit and document. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.A2 and A4 marked with objection. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. Exts.B1 and B2 marked. Supplemental 3^rd opposite party is impleaded as per the contentions raised by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The complainant prays no relief as against the supplemental 3^rd opposite party. Complainant was examined as PW1. Supplemental 3^rd opposite party has not appeared before the forum and hence was set ex-parte. Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2:

We perused relevant documents on record. As per Ext.B2 the net insurer's liability was Rs.12,223/-. In cross examination, complainant stated that he received Rs.12,223/- from the Bajaj Allianz Finance Ltd. Complainant also stated that there was no other transactions between the complainant and Bajaj Allianz Finance Ltd. Undisputed facts of the case are that the motorcycle KL9/Q2823 was insured with the opposite parties company. It is understood that the date of accident was 29.12.06. Complainant claimed Rs.18,011/- for repairing the motor bike as per the bills submitted. But the complainant has not produced evidence to support the claim amount. The opposite parties stated that the complainant produced the bills to the 1^st opposite party on 28.01.08 and on 31.01.08 itself the bills were despatched to the Pune branch. The opposite parties has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the amount of Rs.12,223/- was paid to the complainant before filing the complaint. The complainant stated that he had undergone nine surgeries on his body and the treatment is continuing even now. Then the opposite parties has not paid the claim amount. The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service as they had intentionally neglected to render necessary assistance and service to the complainant in time. In view of the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Hence complaint allowed. According to Ext.B2, the net insurer's liability is only Rs.12,223/- and the complainant has not raised any objection in marking the said document. Delay in disbursing the said amount clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

In view of the above discussions we partly allow the complaint. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest p.a from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of January, 2010.

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Shri.Pramod Das

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Photo copy of letter dtd.28.01.08 sent by complainant to 1^st opposite party

Ext.A2 – Photo copy of letter dtd. 30.01.08 sent by 2^nd opposite party to 1^st opposite

party (with objection)

Ext.A3 - Photo copy of complaint dtd.Nil lodged before the Grievance Cell of

opposite parties

Ext.A4 – Photo copy of reply (with objection)

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Photo copy of Motor survey report

Ext.B2 – Photo copy of bill check report

Costs (Allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost