CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 13/03/2012
CC /47/2012
Zakkir Hussain.K.P,
S/o.Kunhi mohammed,
Managing Partner, Foto Club,
Central Junction, Near Over Bridge, - Complainant
Tirur,Malappuram – 676 101
(BY ADV.John John) Vs
1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
Regional Office, Metro Palace,
Ground Floor, North Railway Station Road, - Opposite parties
Cochin, Ernakulam – 682 018
Represented by its Manager,
(BY ADV.P.K.Devadas)
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
The divisional Office, Opp.Rly.Station,
Railway Station Road, P.B.No:20, Palakkad
Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District.
Represented by its Manager
(BY ADV.P.K.Devadas)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
The case of the complainant in brief:
The complainant had insured his QSS3202 TMS Digital Lab with 2nd opposite party . The policy was insured for a period from 23-6-10 to 22-6-11. The machine which the complaint had insured with the opposite parties had a break down on 11.4.2011 and the unit was damaged. The price of the new laser unit is Rs.14 lakhs and the cost of re-conditioned unit is Rs.4,78,125/-. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy availed by the complainant, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant with the price of a new unit. Since the cost of the reconditioned unit is Rs.4,78,125/- the complainant placed a claim before the opposite parties for getting the said claim amount only. The opposite party deputed a Surveyor and Surveyor submitted the report stating that the claim presented by the complainant is genuine and maintainable.
Eventhough the complainant is eligible to get Rs.4,78,125/- as compensation amount the opposite parties have sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- only. Complainant approached the opposite parties many times for redressing his grievance. But the opposite parties have not taken any steps to redress the grievance. Then the complainant issued a notice dtd.11.10.2011 to the grievance cell, Oriental Insurance Company calling upon them to resolve his grievance. But no steps were taken to disburse the amount for which the complainant is legally entitled. The complainant also issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties. 1st opposite party received the same but not bothered to issue a reply. The act of opposite parties caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.
So the complainant is seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4,75,125/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with 12% interest and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
The opposite parties admit that the Noritsu QSS 3202 T MS Digital lab was insured with the second opposite party . The period of insurance also admitted. But it is not true to say that the policy taken by the complainant was Reinstatement Insurance Policy. The complainant insured the equipment only under Electronic Equipment Insurance Policy. The exchange rate of the laser unit is Rs.4,25,000/-. The reconditioned unit is purchased under the buy back arrangement with the company. The complainant also admits it. As per the terms and conditions of the policy opposite parties are not bound to compensate the complainant with a new unit. The complainant can claim for only Rs.4,25,000/- and not for Rs.4,78,125/-. The Surveyor1 was appointed by the company on 12.4.2011 and survey was conducted on 12.4.2011 and 14.4.2011. The year of manufacture of the machine is 2005. The machine has approximately 1286 prints/hour. On an average with 15 hours working on two shifts and 300 days per year for six years approximate count of print comes to around 3,47,22,000. Considering the age of machine and its usage only 50% depreciation is imposed. After addition of CST and reduction of excess 5% on assessed amount and reinstatement value the net payable amount for the settlement is arrived at Rs.1,95,000/-.
The 2nd opposite party has sent the settlement details and clarification for applying depreciation to the complainant. When the complainant did not respond the 2nd opposite party has sent a letter to the complainant informing that if the discharge voucher is not received within 7 days the claim will be treated as closed. 1st opposite party has not received any lawyer notice from the complainant. 2nd opposite party received the lawyer notice but did not send reply because every thing was made clear to the complainant earlier.
The insured machine being a reconditioned one it is damage prone. From 2008 to 2011 the complainant has lodged six insurance claims with opposite party No.2 with respect to the same machine. The 2nd opposite party has disbursed total claim amount of Rs.4,38,107/- till date.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite parties.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to A6 and Ext.B1 to B13 marked. Insurance Surveyor was cross examined as DW1.
Matter heard and gone through the document on record.
Issues to be considered are:
I. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
II. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
Issue No.I&II
The complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.5,75,125/- with 12% interest from the opposite parties as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony.
The complainant had insured QSS3202 TMS Digital Lab with Reinstatement insurance policy and availed an Electronic Equipment Insurance policy bearing No.442000/44/2011/14 from the opposite parties. The period of insurance policy was from 23.6.2010 to 22.6.2011. Opposite party also admit that the machine was insured with the opposite party but it is not a Reinstatement policy. The equipment was insured under Electronic Equipment Insurance Policy. It is evident from Ext.A1 document. Both parties admit that the laser unit is a re-conditioned unit. On 11.4.2011 the machine had a breakdown and the unit was damaged. Since the price of the reconditioned unit is Rs.4,78,125/- the complainant placed a claim before the opposite parties for getting the said amount only. But the opposite parties sanctioned only Rs.1,95,000/- as per the report of the Surveyor. Opposite party argues that the loss of the reconditioned unit is only Rs.4,25,000/-. Even though the complainant says that the cost of the reconditioned unit is Rs.4,78,125/- there is no document to show the same. In Exbt.B3 document, Survey Report, it is seen that “The Service Partner offers price for new Laser mentioned as Rs.14,00,000/- and the exchange rate as Rs.4,25,000/-. So that the price of the reconditioned unit can be considered as Rs.4,25,000/-.
According to Exbt,B3, the Survey report the present claim is genuine and maintainable. It is also stated that “considering the usage and the life of the unit 50% depreciation imposed”. In the version opposite party state that “the machine has approximately 1286 prints/hour. On an average with 15 hours working on two shifts and 300 days, per year for six years approximately count of print comes to around 3,47,22,000 considering the age of the machine and its usage only 50% depreciation is imposed”. There is no documents to support this version. At the time of cross examination DW1 deposed that as the unit was faulty, he could not take the number of prints taken from the unit. So that this calculation can't be considered. DW1 also deposed that depreciation was imposed as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it is stated in the survey report(Ext.B3) also. But it is not correct. It is not mentioned in the survey report that the depreciation is imposed as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is not mentioned in the version also. Applying to Section 1:2(a) second paragraph,“No deduction shall be made for depreciation in respect of parts replaced, except those with limited life, but the value of any salvage will be taken into account”.
While cross examining DW1 deposed that “the life of the unit was not mentioned in the policy”. So the depreciation is not applicable.
In Ext.B3 it is seen that “Hence the unit on exchange and no salvage considered the discretion is left to the insurers”.
Opposite party states that from 2008 to 2011 the complainant has lodged six insurance claims with 2nd opposite party with respect to the same machine. Some original claim forms and corresponding voucher has been produced as Exhibits B11, B12 and B13. It would work out an amount of Rs.2,46,686/-. So it is true that the insured machine was not in a good condition.
From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in assessing the claim amount as 1,95,000/-. So an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- will meet the end of justice.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) as the insurance claim amount and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of July 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Electronic equipment insurance policy schedule(copy) dt.22.6.2010.
Ext.A2 – Foto Club sent letter to the Grievance Cell dt.11/10/2011.(copy)
Ext. A3 – Copy of lawyer notice dt.23.1.2012.
Ext.A4 – Postal receipt dt.24.1.2012.
Ext.A5 – Postal acknowledgement.
Ext.A6- Invoice from NORITSU dt.10.12.2005.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1-E-mail of break down intimation dt.11.4.2011.
Ext.B2-Electronic equipment insurance claim form of the Oriental Insurance co.Ltd dtd.25/4/11.
Ext.B3- Original Survey report by Mr.K.John George, the Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor dt.10.5.11.
Ext.B4- Original letter of clarification & depreciation adopted by Mr.K.John George dt.11.7.11.
Ext.B5- Original copy of the Misc. Accident Claim Scrutiny form with approval on 17/6/2011.
Ext.B6- True copy of the Electronic Equipment Insurance Policy Schedule and its terms and conditions dt.22/6/10.
Ext.B7- True copy of the letter sent to complainant by OP2 furnishing settlement details dt.17.6.11
Ext.B8-True copy of the letter sent to complainant by OP2 giving clarification for applying depreciation dt.12.8.11
Ext.B9-True copy of the regd.letter sent to complainant by OP2 with regard to settlement along with the postal receipt and returned A/D card dt.27.9.11
Ext.B10-Original letter of reply from complainant received by OP2 dt.04/10/2011
Ext.B11-Original claim form and corresponding voucher dt.28.11.08 received from the complainant
Ext.B12-Original claim form and corresponding voucher dt.31.03.09 received from the complainant
Ext.B13-Original claim form and corresponding voucher dt.26.08.09 received from the complainant
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1- John George.K
