SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to get an order directing opposite party to pay the insurance amount (IDV) in respect of vehicle No. KL 58Q5716, and also Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental pain and suffering together with cost of the proceedings.

            Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing NO. KL 58 Q 5716, two wheeler Yamaha Rays 113.  The said vehicle was insured with OP for the period of 06/08/2015 to 05/08/2016.  The complainant submits that this the said vehicle set ablaze by unruly elements on 20/03/2016, while it was parked near the residence of the complainant.  It was informed to Kuthuparmba police station. The complainant informed the OP about the loss sustained to the vehicle on 21/03/2016 within the short period of the incident and submitted documents.  Further, submitted that she issued reminder to OP on 07/10/2020.  Even though the OP acknowledged the same there was no response on their side.  Lastly on 08/11/2020 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to OP to consider the claim.  OP received the notice on 23/11/2020 and not ready to respond.  The OP is illegally denying the lawful request made by the complainant. The act of OP from not considering the reasonable and lawful claim put forward by the complainant itself shows their deficiency of service towards the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

            After receiving notice OP entered appearance through their panel counsel and filed written version.  The OP denied the entire allegations made by complainant in the complaint.  It is submitted that the vehicle bearing No. KL 58 Q 5716 is two wheeler Yamaha Rays 113.  The said vehicle was insured with OP as per policy No. 2205552312015770 covering the period from 06/08/2015 to 05/08/2016.   It is true that the complainant had sent a letter to OP on 07/10/2020 and OP had received the lawyer notice dated 08/11/2020 issued by the complainant.

            At the evidence time both parties led evidence.  P/A holder of complainant has filed his chief affidavit and documents.  He was examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to Ext.A9.  On the side of OP, the claims manager of OP filed his chief-affidavit and documents.  He has been examined as Dw1 and marked Ext.B1 and B2.  After that the learned counsels of both parties filed their written argument notes.

            Here the question to be decided is whether the claim of the complainant is repudiated by OP and whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?  If so what relief can be given to the complainant?

            The undisputed facts in this case are that the complainant had taken insurance of the car and the policy of insurance was valid for a period from 06/08/2015  to 05/08/2016.  The insurance was for Rs.48,382/-.

            The complainant filed this complaint alleging that on 20/03/2016, the insured vehicle was set fire when it was parked near the residence of the complainant.  The incident is not disputed by OP.  Through Ext.A3, complainant proved that the incident took place on 20/03/2016 and it was informed to concerned police station on 21/03/2016.  OP contended that complainant had not informed the incident immediately to OP and filed claim application only after 6 months after the incident.  Further submitted that only on 07/10/2020 complainant had sent a letter to OP and on reply OP sent letter dated 21/10/2016 (Ext.B1) informing complainant to submit all the necessary documents for processing the claim.  But complainant has not submitted the necessary documents before OP.  So OP could not process the claim.

            On the other hand complainant submitted that on 07/10/2020, she had sent a remainder letter requesting OP to allow her claim application filed at the proper time.  Here complainant has submitted copy of claim application (Ext. A9) in which date of submitting is not mentioned. OP has not submitted original claim application before the commission.  Then we can find out the date of its submission because it would have contained the seal and date of receipt of the same by OP Insurance Company.  Further on perusal Ext. A5, it is seen that it is the remainder letter sent by complainant to OP about the     non-sanctioning of her claim.  It is also evident that the documents such as  Vehicle burnt report ort Reliance General Insurance- Kannur and their confirmation dated 22/03/2016,  FIR Copy, Statement given to Kuthuparamba Police station,  Motor claim form duly filled in, Cancellation of vehicle registration by the authority dated 18/01/2019, copy of the registration particulars, No due certificate  from the financing company (Indusind Bank- Thalassery), No Objection certificate for loan endorsement removal, Copy of invoice issued the AMG Automobiles-Thalassery,  Aadhar card, Pan card, Bank account pass book, Copy of passport submitted by the complainant to OP.  Ext.A5 also reveal that complainant had reported the burn of the vehicle on 21/03/2016 ie. on the next day of incident itself  to OP which is not denied by OP in Ext.B1 letter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, in our opinion, the OP is liable to indentify the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to burn of his car under the Insurance policy.

            The next question to be decided is what amount the complainant is entitled to claim from the OP for the loss suffered by him.  Dw1 the claims manager of OP deposed during cross-examination that the vehicle was completely burnt within 5 months of its purchase.  It is also stated that OP is liable to give the ID value of the vehicle.  In Ext.A2 Insurance certificate the ID value of the vehicle was Rs.48,362/-.  Since the total loss happened within 5 months of the purchase of the vehicle.  There is   no scope for depreciation of the value.

            The OP had failed to consider the complainants’ claim for a very long time without any reason or justification. In fact, it appears that the OP neither repudiated the claim made by the complainant nor paid the amount on total loss basis.  There is therefore deficiency in service on the part of the OP and hence OP is liable to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant under the insurance policy.

            In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.48,362/- (ID Value) together with Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings of the case.  Opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the amount Rs.48,362/- + 10,000/- carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  order till realization.  Complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite party under Consumer Protection act 2019.

Exts.

A1- Copy of RC

A2- Copy of insurance policy

A3- Copy of FIR

A4- Order from RTO

A5- Reminder to OP

A6- Acknowledgment card

A7- Lawyer notice

A8- Acknowledgment card

A9- Claim form

B1-Intimation issued by OP

B2- Two wheeler vehicle Certificate cum policy schedule

Pw1-Complainant

Dw1-OP

       Sd/                                                                                 Sd/                                                      Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                  MEMBER                                            MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar