Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

148/2007

P.Varalakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The senior Manager,New India Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

S.M.Mohmed Saleem

11 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 26.09.2006

                                                                          Date of Order : 11.01.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

CC. NO.148/2007

TUESDAY THE 11^th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

P. Varalakshmi,

W/o. Purushothaman,

No.29/23, Velavan Nagar,

Kolathur, Chennai -99.                              .. Complainant.

 

                                      ..Vs..

 

The Senior Manager,

New India Insurance Company,

No.2, B.R. Comlex,

Chennai – 2.                                             .. Opposite party. 

 

 

Counsel for complainant             :  M/s. S.M. Mohamed Saleem

Counsel for opposite party         :  M/s. S.Manohar & another  

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay  a sum of Rs.70,348/- for the loss incurred to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony  and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that she is the owner of the vehicle  TATA Qualis  bearing  Reg. No.TN 05 E 6665 was insured with the opposite parties for the period from 15.6.2005 to 14.6.2006.  On 24.5.2006 the vehicle got Fire and sustained severe damages.   Immediately the complainant approached the Fire service and the fire was put off.  Thereafter the complainant took  the vehicle for repair to the authorized service centre M/s.  Lanson Motors Private Limited.  The complainant incurred a sum of Rs.78,450/-  towards repairing charges including cost of spare parts.  The complainant  submitted due claim form enclosing all the necessary document and receipts for claiming the said amount.  But the opposite party failed and neglected to consider the claim and reimbursed only a sum of Rs.38,328/-,  The opposite party neglected to pay a sum of Rs.40,348/- towards the actual amount incurred for repairing vehicle.   Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated 27.7.2006 claiming the actual amount incurred towards repair charges with cost.  Since the opposite party has not come forward to settle the amount.     As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainants. 

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The vehicle namely TATA Qualis bearing Regn. No.TN 05 E 6665 insured with the opposite party for the period from 15.6.2005 to 14.6.2006.   This opposite party do  not have any knowledge regarding the Fire accident happened on 24.5.2006 and the Fire service put off the Fire.   The complainant also has not informed the said Fire accident to the police and no FIR registered.  Immediately after the accident the complainant without informing the opposite party, took the vehicle to M/s. Lanson Motors Private Limited the authorized service centre for repair.   The authorized service centre repaired the vehicle and gave estimate and bill After the receipt of the claim form with the document of M/s. Landson Motors Service Centre, this opposite party came to know about the Fire accident immediately surveyor was appointed.  The surveyor was not able to visit the spot.    The surveyor was deprived of from the opportunity of conducting enquiry regarding the genuineness of the claim.  The surveyor after due verification of the repaired vehicle and after deducting depreciation charges settled the claim for Rs.38,328/-.  The opposite party further state that,  subject to the terms, exceptions and conditions contained  herein.   Subject to the deduction for depreciation at the rates mentioned below:

   For all rubber /nylon plastic parts tyres and

   tubes batteries and air bags                       : 50%

   For fiber glass components                         : 30%

   For all parts made of glass                          :  nil ..

Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainants has filed proof affidavit as her  evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A.7. marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no documents   marked on the side of the opposite party.

4. The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.70,348/- towards repair charges as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?

5.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents etc.   The complainant pleaded  and contended that she is the owner of the vehicle  TATA Qualis  bearing  Reg. No.TN 05 E 6665 was insured with the opposite party insurance company for the period from 15.6.2005 to 14.6.2006 as per Ex.A1 is admitted.  On 24.5.2006 the vehicle got Fire and sustained severe damages.   Immediately the complainant approached the Fire service and the fire was put off.  Thereafter the complainant took the vehicle for repair to the authorized service centre M/s.  Lanson Motors Private Limited.  The complainant incurred a sum of Rs.78,450/-  towards repairing charges including cost of spare parts as per Ex.A4.  The complainant  submitted due claim form enclosing all the necessary document and receipts for claiming the said amount.  But the opposite party failed and neglected to consider the claim and reimbursed only a sum of Rs.38,328/-  as per Ex.A4 series.   The opposite party neglected to pay a sum of Rs.40,348/- towards the actual amount incurred for repairing vehicle.   The opposite party settled the claim partly on the basis of the surveyor’s report.   But the opposite parties has not produced any surveyor report in this forum.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated 27.7.2006 claiming the actual amount incurred towards repair charges with cost.  Since the opposite party has not come forward to settle the amount.  The complainant was constrained to file this case.

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly the vehicle namely TATA Qualis bearing Regn. No.TN 05 E 6665 insured with the opposite party for the period from 15.6.2005 to 14.6.2006.   This opposite party do  not have any knowledge regarding the Fire accident happened on 24.5.2006 and the Fire service put off the Fire.   The complainant  also has not filed any document to prove the alleged Fire accident.   The complainant also has not informed the said Fire accident to the police and no FIR registered.  Immediately after the accident the complainant without informing the opposite party, took the vehicle to M/s. Lanson Motors Private Limited the authorized service centre for repair.   The authorized service centre repaired the vehicle and gave estimate and bill as per Ex.A4 series.  After the receipt of the claim form with the document of M/s. Landson Motors Service Centre, this opposite party came to know about the Fire accident, immediately due surveyor was appointed.  The surveyor was not able to visit the spot.    The surveyor was deprived of from the opportunity of conducting enquiry regarding the genuineness of the claim.  The surveyor after due verification of the repaired vehicle and after deducting depreciation charges settled the claim for Rs.38,328/-.  The complainant has not challenged the reason stated by the surveyor and the details of deduction mentioned in the written version towards for repairing charges related to rubber/nylon/plastic  articles 50%, equally fibre glass 30% likewise the depreciation up to 10 years the percentage is 5 to 50% after considering all these aspects the opposite party settled the claim which was not disputed.  But the complainant sent legal notice claiming a balance of Rs.40,348/- reduced by way of depreciation and plastic, glass articles cannot be reimbursed and it cannot be treated as deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in this complaint and the points are answered accordingly.       

        In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost. 

 

        Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of January 2018. 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDNET.

COMPLAINANT’S SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-  15.6.2005 - Copy of certificate of Insurance issued by the opp. party.

Ex.A2- 24.5.2006  - Copy of work requirement details in respect of the vehicle.

Ex.A3- 24.5.2006  - Copy of repair order.

Ex.A4- 15.6.2006  - Copy of tax invoice.

Ex.A5- 23.6.2006  - Copy of receipt.

Ex.A6- 27.7.2006  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A7- 3.8.2006    - Copy of Ack. Card.

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:   ..Nil..

 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDENT.