Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

131/2010

M Chandrasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Aashish Kumar

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  13.11.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  11.01.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 11^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2017

 

C.C.NO.131/2010

 

 

M.Chandrasekar,

No.2, 3^rd Cross Street,

Tirupathy Nagar,

Kolathur,

Chennai – 600 099

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

United India Insurance Company Limited,

Divisional Office No.010300,

No.58, Purasawakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 007.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 26.11.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M.Aashish Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party                     : Mr.S.K.Krishnamurthy

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant owns a Maruti Zen VXI car bearing registration No.TN 09 R 4808 duly insured with the Opposite Party to a comprehensive policy and the said policy is valid from 31.03.2009 to 30.03.2010. On 26.02.2010 evening the Complainant and his family members left from Chennai to Trichy to visit his relatives.  At Ulundurpet around 10.40 p.m, he stopped the vehicle to  have tea in a nearby shop. On return from the tea shop, he saw the vehicle in a damaged condition on the front side, front windshield and on the doors.  A person standing nearby by his vehicle informed him that a vehicle had hit his vehicle and going at high speed and he could not notice the number of the vehicle, since it was very dark.  The Complainant enquired nearby police station and learnt that he has to travel 9 kms from the place of the accident. The Complainant family with kids aged 5 years and 1.5 years and hence decided to return back to Chennai. The vehicle bumper, bonnet was in damaged condition and was rubbing with the front right side tyre. Since the Complainant has to return to Chennai, he had done minimum required repairs with the local mechanic to the bonnet and bumpers in order to not rubbing with the tyres.  On reaching Chennai the Complainant called the Opposite Party, since it was Saturday he wrote a letter dated 01.03.2010 and submitted a claim intimation letter on the same day. The Complainant completed all the claim formalities within four days from the date of accident. The Opposite Party surveyor inspected the vehicle at the work shop at his wish the observation of the surveyor that the damages or accumulated damage in the long past various accidents is highly irresponsible.  However, the Opposite Party rejected the claim by his letter dated 22.04.2010 expressing his inabilities to admit the claim of the Complainant without assigning any reason and the said letter was received by the Complainant. The Complainant again wrote a letter dated 14.06.2010 to the Opposite Party.  Since the Opposite Party failed to honour the claim of the Complainant, he has filed this Complaint to pass an order as prayed with cost.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF

          As per the policy conditions the insurer should immediately intimate the loss/damages to the insurer. The purpose of an immediate notice is to allow the insurer to investigate whether the loss is within the scope of the policy, whether or not warranties/conditions have been complied. This apart as per rules no claim for a loss equal to or exceeding Rs.20,000/- can be settled by an insurer unless a Surveyor Report is obtained from a Licensed Professional Surveyor. The determination of amount payable solely depends on the report of the Licensed Professional Surveyors. The Complainant failed to inform the nearest police station and failed to submit an estimate of repairs as soon as possible to the Opposite Party. He ought not to have allowed repairer to repair before approval of estimate of cost of repair including replacement of parts. The Complainant also failed to produce RC book, driving license etc. to the Opposite Party.  The surveyor inspected the vehicle and placed a report stating that the Complainant has already repaired the vehicle.  The windscreen glass crack was not due to any external impact, only an air crack and damages to right hand rear door and quarter panel were not relevant to the cause and nature of accident and opined that claim is not payable. Hence based on the surveyor report the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant and this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The case of the Complainant is that  on 26.02.2010 evening he left Chennai with his family members to visit his relatives at Trichy by road in his Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No.TN 09 R 4808 and at about 10.45 p.m, he stopped the vehicle at Ulundurpet  to have tea  in a nearby tea shop and after having tea on return from the tea shop, he was surprised to see that his vehicle  is in damaged condition  on the front side of the car  i.e  front windshield, bonnet, bumper  and  doors and a person standing nearby his vehicle informed him that a vehicle has  hit the car and sped away from the place and he did not notice the car  number and after that in order to the Complainant to take care of his family members after having minimum repair in the car returned to Chennai and after that he informed the Opposite Party by filing claim for damages.

          5. The Opposite Party contended that  his surveyor  inspected the Complainant damaged vehicle on the instruction of the Opposite Party and he submitted Ex.B1 report to the Opposite Party that  the vehicle had already repaired the damaged portion and windscreen glass crack was not due to any external impact  and it  is only an air crack and the damages to the right hand rear door   and quarter panel were not relevant to the cause and nature of accident  and therefore in his opinion  the claim is not payable and based on the surveyor report the claim was repudiated by the Opposite Party under Ex.B2 & Ex.B5 and therefore the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          6.  The admitted case of the Complainant is that after accident at Ulundurpet he had done repair there itself and again after reaching Chennai he left the vehicle at Swamy Auto Mobiles for repair. The Complainant stated in his claim form that the damages are in the bonnet front right side, bumper, grill, windshield left side rear door. In the Complaint also he had pleaded the same damages. However, in order to drive the vehicle to Chennai the local mechanic repaired by way of just removing the dent on the bumper, bonnet and applied white colour metallic paste to the required extent. Apart from that he had not carried out any other damage in the vehicle.

          7. The Opposite Party had not denied the Complainant went to Trichy in his car and the car was damaged at Ulundurpet. He had contended in the written version that the conditions of the policy have not been followed.  The Complainant immediately filed the claim to the Opposite Party.   He had valid Ex.A1 driving license, Ex.A2 is the registration certificate and Ex.A3 is the copy of the insurance policy for his car.  On the date of accident the policy issued by the Opposite Party is in force. Therefore the Complainant is entitled to claim for damages for his car based on the policy.

8. The counsel for Opposite Party specifically argued that based on the surveyor report the damages found in   the car of the Complainant all around and therefore for such accumulated damages, the Complainant is not entitled for claim. Ex.A5 claim form and in the pleadings  of the Complaint , the damages were found mostly in the front of the vehicle  such as in the bonnet, front right side, bumper, grill, windshield  and excepting rear door of the vehicle. Even the vehicle was hit on the front, due to force there may be possibilities of damage would occur in the rear door also.   Therefore considering the circumstances, we hold that damages occurred to the Complainant car only on accident as pleaded by him and  hence the Complainant is entitled to maintain the claim against the Opposite Party.  The surveyor report was not supported by  any technical evidence  and therefore based on the surveyor report the Opposite Party rejected the claim is not sustainable and hence, it is held that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service by rejecting the claim of the Complainant.  

9. POINT NO:2

The Complainant produced Ex.A6 estimate for a sum of Rs.23,147/-  to repair the car. The Complainant claimed only a sum of Rs.23,150/-  towards the claim and for such amount the Complainant is entitled from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party by rejecting the claim caused mental agony to the Complainant is accepted and for the same, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.      

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.23,150/- (Rupees twenty three thousand  one hundred and fifty only) towards the claim amount to the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th   day of January 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 27.07.1987                   Driving License TN-0919870004434

Ex.A2 dated 17.07.2000                   Registration Certificate

Ex.A3 dated 30.03.2009                   Copy of the Insurance Policy

Ex.A4 dated 01.03.2010                   Letter from the petitioner to the Opposite Party

Ex.A5 dated 01.03.2010                   Claim form

Ex.A6 dated 02.03.2010                   Estimate from Swamy Automobiles

Ex.A7 dated 22.04.2010                   Rejection of claim by Opposite Party

Ex.A8 dated 14.06.2010                   Letter from the petitioner to the Opposite Party

Ex.A9 dated 06.07.2010                   Addendum from Opposite Party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated 08.03.2012                   Survey Report

Ex.B2 dated 22.04.2010                   Letter of the Opposite Party

Ex.B3 dated 14.06.2010                   Letter of the Insured

Ex.B4 dated 23.06.2010                   Letter of the Surveyor

Ex.B5 dated 06.07.2010                   Letter of the Insured

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT