This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri G. Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant had obtained an insurance policy from the opposite party vide policy No.431401/31/2010/717 on his car bearing No. AP 20 H 0333 valid from 17-07-2009 to 08-05-2010. On 21-09-2009, the insured car met with an accident near N. S. P. Canal, Khammam, while trying to give the way to the another vehicle, the driver of the Car, who was engaged by the complainant, lost his control and dashed the culvert and again dashed a big tree and fell into water, due to which, the car was totally damaged and the body of the car was totally destroyed, the windows, seats, battery, engine were totally damaged. On the very next day, it was informed to the police and the Police conducted Panchanama on the same day i.e. on 22-09-2009 at 10.30hrs, and on the same day the complainant claimed the opposite party, upon which, the opposite party deputed a licensed Surveyor for assessing the damages. The Surveyor estimated the repair works is at Rs.1,52,200/- and after considering the depreciation and salvage etc., he assessed the damages on total loss basis is at Rs.1,44,500/- and the net loss on salvage basis is of Rs.1,39,500/- and on cash loss basis is at Rs.98,340/-, which was informed to the complainant through a letter dt.28-09-2010, in response to the said letter, the complainant addressed a letter dt.03-02-2010 by agreeing to accept the sum of Rs.1,39,500/- as maturity negotiated settlement on net salvage loss basis. Even though, there is no response from the opposite party. The complainant felt inconvenient in order to purchase another car and also sustained monitory loss and as such the complainant claimed the total sum of Rs.2,88,869/- as per assessment of the Surveyor. The complainant further submitted that even after making many rounds, the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant, therefore, he filed the present complaint by praying to direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,60,000/- under insurance policy bearing No. 431401/31/2010/717 and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages and Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 to A7.
Ex.A1:- Panchanama, dt.22-09-2009, conducted by S.H.O., P.S., Khammam Rural.
Ex.A2:- Photocopy of Information regarding the accident, dt.22-09-2009 to the opposite party.
Ex.A3:- Letter dt.28-01-2010 addressed by the Surveyor to the complainant.
Ex.A4:- Letter dt.28-01-2010 addressed by the Surveyor to the complainant (with different contents as mentioned in Ex.A3).
Ex.A5:- Letter dt.03-02-2010, addressed by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A6:- Photocopy of Job estimation bills, dt.25-09-2009.
Ex.A7:- Policy copy.
3. On being noticed, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter.
4. In the counter, the opposite party denied all the averments, mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered under the policy and the insured can not claim more than any amounts covered under the policy and if there is any violation of terms of the contract, it becomes void and the insurance company would not liable to pay the amounts under the policy. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant directly approached the Forum without issuance of any notice for payment of policy amount and also submitted that after lapse of considerable time the amount was not paid by the company. The claim of the complainant is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, thus, there is no liability and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and as such the complaint is not comes under the provisions of the C.P. Act, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. Along with a petition, the opposite party filed final survey report, dt.03-03-2010, marked as Ex.B1 and also filed written arguments by reiterating the same averments as mentioned in the counter.
6. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief
as prayed for?
Point:-
As seen from the above averments, the complainant has stated that he had insured his car bearing No. AP 20 H 0333 of which he was the owner, with the opposite party for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,60,000/- by paying necessary premium, the policy was started from 17-07-2009 to 08-05-2010, when it was in force i.e. on 21-09-2009 the insured vehicle met with an accident and badly damaged. On the very next day i.e. on 22-09-2009 lodged a complaint with the Police, after conducting Panchanama, claimed the opposite party on the same day, then the Surveyor, who was deputed by the opposite party, assessed the damages and issued Survey Report by taking necessary considerations and according to the said report, the complainant addressed a letter on 03-02-2010 to the opposite party by agreeing the sum of Rs.1,39,500/- towards final settlement but there is no response from the opposite party till the date of filing of complaint, due to which, he constrained to file the present complaint. In support of his averments, the complainant placed Exs.A1 to A7. On a perusal of documents, filed by the complainant, it is a fact that the complainant’s car met with an accident when the policy was in force, immediately it was informed to the Police and the opposite party and after receipt of letter dt.28-01-2010 from the Surveyor of the opposite party for final settlement, the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party on 03-02-2010 and agreed to receive the sum of Rs.1,39,500/- toward settlement. On the other hand, the opposite party denied all the averments of the complaint and also denied their liability to pay the amounts as claimed, but at the final stage of the proceedings, filed the final report of the Surveyor dt.03-03-2010, marked under Ex.B1. According to Ex.B1, the surveyor, assessed the loss on repair basis i.e. on net assessed loss is @Rs.1,52,200/- wherein, the surveyor had given two options to the insured and insurer for final settlement as the loss on repair basis crosses the 75% of I.D.V. As per the said options, the assessment on total loss basis is @Rs.1,44,500/- and the loss assessed on cash loss basis is @Rs.98,348/-, but as per the averments of the opposite party, there is no notice for settlement from the complainant, therefore there is no deficiency on its part and the claim is not maintainable according to the provisions of C.P. Act, which is not tenable and opine that it is the duty of the opposite party to give proper services to its consumers till the contract of insurance is concluded, in the instant case the opposite party did not respond properly even after submission of final survey report, dt.03-03-2010 and also failed to take any steps for final settlement even prior to the filing of complaint and as such the attitude of opposite party is definitely amounts to deficiency of service in settling the claim of the complainant, therefore the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant by holding that the complainant is entitled the amounts according to the final report of the surveyor is @Rs.1,44,500/- on total loss basis after deducting the Wreck value and policy excess from the I.D.V. of the insured vehicle.
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,44,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) towards total loss basis under policy bearing No. 431401/31/2010/717 together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 16-05-2011 till the date of realization and also directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 10th day of July, 2013.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties: -None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:-
Ex.A1:- Panchanama, dt.22-09-2009, conducted by S.H.O., P.S., Khammam Rural.
Ex.A2:- Photocopy of Information regarding the accident, dt.22-09-2009 to the opposite party.
Ex.A3:- Letter dt.28-01-2010 addressed by the Surveyor to the complainant.
Ex.A4:- Letter dt.28-01-2010 addressed by the Surveyor to the complainant (with different contents as mentioned in Ex.A3).
Ex.A5:- Letter dt.03-02-2010, addressed by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A6:- Photocopy of Job estimation bills, dt.25-09-2009.
Ex.A7:- Policy copy.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:-
Ex.B1:- Final survey report, dt.03-03-2010.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam.
