Popular Vehicles

**admin** · 09-06-2009, 06:19 PM

L. Mohanan, 8/479, 'Navaneetham', Pravachambalam, Nemom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. T.R. Sheeja)

Opposite parties:

1. 1. National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, St. Joseph's Press Building, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. U.S. Ganesh Kumar)

1. 1. Popular Vehicles& Services Ltd., Kuttukaran Complex, Karamana P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K.L. Narasimhan)

This O.P having been heard on 16.03.2009, the Forum on 15.04.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
The facts that lead to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant purchased a Maruti Esteem Diesel car Reg. No. KL-01-AF 5544 from the Popular Vehicles and Services, Karamana which was insured with the 1st opposite party Maruti Udyog Ltd. under policy No. 8370268. Under the policy, the vehicle was insured for the period from 09.11.2004 to 08.11.2005 by a comprehensive insurance. The insured value of the vehicle was fixed at Rs. 4,91,151/- for which the premium charged was Rs. 19,003/-, the price of the vehicle was Rs. 5,17,003/-. The car met with an accident on 30.06.2005 by which the car was completely damaged. Damage of the vehicle and repair costs were estimated by the 2nd opposite party at Rs. 5,58,270/-. Repairing of the vehicle by replacing parts would exceed the value of the vehicle and would affect the life of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant requested the opposite party for replacement with a new vehicle which the petitioner is entitled to. It was within eight months of purchase the vehicle was so damaged due to the accident. The complainant produced filled up claim form and relevant documents to the opposite parties to settle the claim. But inspite of lapse of more than four months since the date of accident, the amount was not paid.

Therefore complainant sent a letter demanding the amount on 25.10.2005 to the opposite parties. To this notice the 1st opposite party sent reply and it can be seen that policy can be honoured at all officers of the 1st opposite party. Since the commitment was not honoured and the representation was given a go-bye by the 1st opposite party, complainant had withdrawn the consent made on 08.10.2005. The consent letter was the result of misrepresentation. The service of the 1st opposite party in not honouring the insurance in time is deficiency of service. Complainant has stated that he is entitled to get the full value of the vehicle that is Rs. 5,17,003/-. Apart from the above facts due to the delay in settling the claim, the vehicle had to be kept at the workshop of the 2nd opposite party till 08.10.2005 for which complainant had to pay Rs. 7,160/- as demurrage. Complainant states that he is entitled to get reimbursement of the said amount. Complainant claims Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation due to deprivation of a vehicle, mental agony, loss and sufferings. After filing the complaint, the 1st opposite party remitted Rs. 2,30,000/- directly with the financier bank on 06.12.2005. Thereafter the complainant received Rs. 1,75,000/- as wreck value of the vehicle.
The 1st opposite party in this case remained ex-parte. 2nd opposite party Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. filed their version. In their version they stated that 2nd opposite party is not a necessary party in this case. They have no liability in this matter. They also contended that the allegation that complainant paid an amount of Rs. 7,160/- to the 2nd opposite party on account of demurrage is not correct. The said charge of Rs. 7,160/- is paid towards the break down attending charge, towing charge, estimate preparation and survey conducting charges and the service tax therefrom. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
1st opposite party is National Insurance Company and they remain exparte.

Complainant is seeking relief against the 1st opposite party. The complainant and 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit. Examined the complainant as PW1 and he has produced 8 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P8. Nobody has cross examined the complainant.
Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. 1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
  2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought?
  3. Costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- In this case the complainant is a leading advocate. He purchased the car for his own use. He insured the Maruti Esteem diesel car with the 1st opposite party under Policy No. 8370208. the insured value of the vehicle was fixed as Rs. 4,91,151/- for which the premium charged was Rs. 19,003/-. Under that policy the vehicle was insured for the period from 09.11.2004 to 08.11.2005. The car met with an accident on 30.06.2005 by which the car was completely damaged.

It was within eight months of purchase of the vehicle. The complainant several times approached the 1st opposite party for replacement with a new vehicle, but it was not given. Lastly the officials of the 1st opposite party agreed to settle the claim that the immediate payment will be effected and he consented for salvage value and gave consent letter. On representation made by the 1st opposite party that the amount will be paid within two days, the original certificate of insurance was also given. But inspite of more than four months of the date of accident the amount was not paid. On 25.10.2005 the complainant sent notice to the opposite parties demanding the amount and the 1st opposite party sent reply. Since the commitment was not honoured and the representation was given a go-bye by the 1st opposite party, complainant had withdrawn the consent made on 08.10.2005. The consent letter was the result of misrepresentation. Hence this complaint.

These are the facts of the case. To prove his contentions the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 8 documents. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P8. Ext. P1 is the copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. Ext. P2 is the invoice of the car for Rs. 5,17,001.42 dated 23.09.2004. Ext. P3 is the copy of FIR with FIS with regard to the accident. Ext. P4 is the estimate of repairs made by the 2nd opposite party at Rs. 5,58,270/-. Ext. P5 is the copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties on 25.10.2005 demanding the amount. Ext. P6 is the reply sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext. P7 is the letter issued by the 1st opposite party on 25.10.2005. In this letter it can be seen that policy can be honoured at all offices of 1st opposite party. It is against the stand taken by the opposite parties in Ext. P6 notice. In Ext. P6 letter the opposite parties stated that the claim can be settled only on receipt of the cancelled policy from Delhi Divisional Office.

We have gone through the evidences very carefully. The facts narrated above remain uncontroverted. Admittedly the accident had happened on 30.06.2005 during validity of the insurance policy, and there is no dispute regarding the insured amount, i.e, Rs. 4,91,151/- and there is no dispute in total loss assessed by the surveyor appointed by the insurer. We accordingly hold that in these circumstances, the company was bound to pay the insured value of the vehicle to the complainant. But the opposite party has not paid the amount in time. The opposite party denied the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant without any cause. The complainant submitted the filled up claim form and relevant documents in time. But the opposite party did not do their part promptly. After filing this complaint before this Forum the opposite party had paid Rs. 2,30,000/- directly with the financier bank on 06.12.2005. Thereafter the complainant received Rs. 1,75,000/- as wreck value of the vehicle. The service of the 1st opposite party in not honouring the insurance in time is deficiency in service. Complainant is entitled to get the insured value of the vehicle Rs. 4,91,151/- from the 1st opposite party.

From this amount the complainant had got Rs. 4,05,000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 86,151/- from the 1st opposite party as the insurance claim amount. The complainant also demanded for the repayment of Rs. 7,160/- which he paid to the 2nd opposite party as demurrage charge. But as per Ext. P8 that amount was not paid as demurrage charge, that was paid towards the breakdown attending charge, towing charge etc. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get that amount.

In this case due to the delay in paying the insured amount the complainant had suffered a lot of loss. Complainant had to spend time and money for visiting the offices of the opposite parties. Complainant had been paying interest also to his loan to the bank for the delayed months. Again, on account of dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of 1st opposite party, complainant suffered loss and injury due to deprivation of a vehicle and mental agony. The complainant has produced a decision 2008(8) SCC 279 Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that “It is therefore obvious that in the light of this stringent provision and being in a dominant position the insurance companies often act in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured good disown that very figure on one pretext or the other when they called upon to pay compensation”. From the above said discussion, this Forum allow this complaint. On considering all the above, complainant is found entitled to get compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-.

In the result, the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 86,151/- to the complainant as the balance insured amount with 12% annual interest from 08.10.2005. The 1st opposite party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month, thereafter 12% annual interest also shall be paid to the above said amounts till the date of realization.

**Sidhant** · 09-11-2009, 09:07 PM

The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had purchased a Maruti Versa bearing registration No.KL-7AM-9236 2003 Model from the respondents for an amount of Rs.3,28,500/-. The date of booking was marked as 25.6.05. In addition to the price of vehicle the respondents received Rs.8125/- as insurance amount and Rs.2022/- as NCB. While checking the documents of the vehicle the complainant came to know that the said vehicle had an insurance policy up to 31.3.06. Hence as the insurance policy presently exists, the respondents charged an extra amount for insurance. So the respondents had done an unfair trade practice. The complainant had sent a lawyer notice to the respondents on 25.3.2006. The facts stated in the reply is not true and no relief for the complainant. Hence the complaint.

2. The version filed by respondents-1 and 2 is that the respondent is the Maruti True Value dealer of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. at Ernakulam, which deals with pre-owned cars. The complainant had booked the said vehicle dated 25.6.05. In the booking form in column 2 in vehicle details it has been specifically stated that the insurance available for the vehicle is liability policy alone. It has also been communicated to the complainant that the policy No.9085251 the package policy, which covers both own damage and liability for the vehicle for the period 24.5.05 to 23.5.06 is been detained by the previous owner Mrs. Suchithra.I. Thankachy.

Since she had 25% NCB a liability policy No.570104/31//05/6700001415 for the period from 27.5.05 to 26.5.06 alone is available to the vehicle and thereafter as requested by complainant respondent has arranged a package policy covering both own damage and liability for the vehicle by paying Rs.8125/-. Hence the contrary averments in the complaint are false and misleading and hence denied by the respondents. Further more respondents have refunded an amount of Rs.1354/- to the complainant being the proportionate premium amount for the months of May and June 2005. This being the true facts the entire allegations in the complaint are false and are denied by the respondents. There is absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence dismiss.

3. The points for consideration are:

(1) Is there any deficiency in service?
(2) If so, costs and compensation?

4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2.

5. Points-1 & 2: The complainant had purchased a 2003 year model Maruti Versa car bearing registration No.KL-7AM-9326 for an amount of Rs.3,28,500/- from the respondents. As per Ext. P1 the said vehicle is a pre-owned car and the said vehicle is transferred to the complainant. The car booking date was 25.6.05. The insurance details are shown having validity up to 26.5.06. As per Ext. P1 under the price details section, nothing us written in the columns of insurance transfer charges and insurance NCB and that column is completely blank. At the end of the booking form ie. (Ext. P1) insurance amount and NCB amount is written additionally.

As per Ext. P2 the previous owner’s name and address and all details about policy can be seen. The said vehicle is insured for a period of 24.5.05 to 23.5.06. In the counter the respondent stated that the package policy for the said vehicle is been detained by the previous owner and thus an amount of Rs.8125/- for the policy is received from the complainant. Nothing is mentioned in the version about the NCB amount of Rs.2022/-. Other than this the respondents have mentioned that they refunded an amount of Rs.1354/-. But there is no evidence for the refund of this amount. If they have refunded that amount they have to produce the document to prove. More over if the previous owner is detained any amount towards the premium, they are at liberty to realize that amount from that person. If the present owner is entitled to pay any amount towards the policy, the respondents can very well add that in the proper column under price details. Nothing is mentioned in this column in the booking form. Hence the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents is made clear.

6. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return an amount of Rs.8125/- (rupees eight thousand one hundred and twenty five only) and Rs.2022/- (Rupees two thousand and twenty two only) and further directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs to the litigation within a month.