IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday the 30^th day of April, 2010

Filed on 17.07.07

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)             

in

C.C.No.141/07

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite Party:-

      Sri.Sreedharan,                                                       The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

S/o Pappan, Manakkattu Chira,                              Muncipal Office Ward,

Ward No.VII, Mararikkulam North                        Alappuzha.

Panchayat, S.L.Puram .P.O.                                   (By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)

     (By Adv.P.B.Selvarajan)                                                                                        

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant is that his vehicle was insured with the opposite party and the said vehicle met with an accident on 27.11.2005.  Thereafter he preferred a claim to the opposite party and the opposite party repudiated the claim. Hence he preferred this claim.

1. Opposite party filed version stating that the damage caused to the vehicle not from accident. Further thy contended that before the inspection of the surveyor appointed by the insurance company the vehicle dismantled. This is a violation of the policy condition.

2. Considering the rival contention of both parties this Forum framed following issues.

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

3. Complainant examined as PW1 and produced 5 documents which are marked as Ext Al to A5. Opposite party examined one witness and marked 5 documents which are marked as Ext.B1 to B4.

4. Ext. A4 claim form shows that he filed the claim and intimation on 30.11­.2005. But the report of the surveyor submitted on 11-1-2006. As per the report they were inspected the vehicle only on 2-12-2005. It is the duty of the insurance company to inspect the vehicle with in 1 day from the date of intimation. This was not done by the opposite party. The definite case of the complainant that his vehicle hit to a granite and skid the vehicle and sustained damages to the diesel tank and door of the vehicle. The complainant intimated the accident to the police and they recorded in the General Diary.  Copy of the General Diary produced by the complainant which is marked as Ext. A1.  In this document the accident is clearly narrated. Against this document the insurance company produced the survey report. Surveyor is not an expert for assessing the forensic matter of the accident. Further Ext Al document was prepared by the police in the due course of their duty. The said document has a legal presumption as per section 35 of the Evidence Act. The legal presumption has not rebutted by the opposite party any cogent evidence. The surveyor is not an expert. Further he was appointed by the insurance company and he inspected the vehicle along with the officer of the insurance company. Further there is no evidence to substantiate when they inspected the vehicle. The damage noticed by the police is not only to the diesel tanker but also to the door. There is no reason to believe this statement. In the absence of clear evidence the case of the opposite party is not believable.

The opposite party has assessed the damage of the vehicle is for Rs.45,144/- (Rupees forty five thousand one hundred and forty four only).  The complainant produced details bills for an amount of Rs.82,032/- (Rupees eighty two thousand and thirty two only).  This was marked as Ext. A5. The liability of the insurance company is only as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy value of the replaced parts can be allowable subject to depreciation. Hence the assessment of the surveyor of the insurance company can only be acceptable. Hence this complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.45,144/- (Rupees forty five thousand one hundred and forty four only) with 9% interest from 17-7-2007 till realization. Complainant is also entitled to get cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).  In the result complaint allowed to pay Rs.45,144/- (Rupees forty five thousand one hundred and forty four only) with 9% interest and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Complaint allowed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of April, 2010.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi     

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           M.P.Sreedharan (Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The GD Extract of Mararikkulam Police Station on 28.11.2005           

Ext. A2 Series  -           The copy of the Tax Invoice dated, 29.11.2005 (3 Nos.)

Ext. A3 Series  -           The copy of the vehicle dimensions (3 Nos.)

Ext. A4 Series  -           The copy of the Motor Accident Claim Intimation dated, 30.11.05 (2Nos.)

Ext. A5            -           The copy of the Quatation for Accident Repairs dated, 29.11.05

Evidence of the opposite party:- 

RW1                -           Saraswathy Balachandran (Witness)

Ext. B1            -           The copy of the Policy with Condition

Ext. B2 -           The Claim form submitted by the complainant dated, 30.11.2005

Ext. B3 -           The copy of the Motor Survey Report dated, 11.01.2006

Ext. B4 -           The copy of the repudiation letter to the complainant

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-