SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to pay Rs.15211/- already remitted by the complainant to KSEB along with compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and cost of the proceedings for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
The brief of the complaint :
The complainant is the owner of Maruti car as per the Reg. No.KL11J8881. The OP was insured the vehicle as per receipt No.76260131220000017907 dtd.6/3/2023 and the previous policy No.76260131210200021842. The period of coverage as per the policy is from 6/3/2023 10.46- 12 A.M to 5/3/2024 11.59.59 P.M. The complainant ‘s car had hit against the electric post of the KSEB on 6/3/2023 at 4.15 P.M at Ayithara, Mambaram, Kolathukavu and damage caused to the car and electric post. On 7/3/2023 the KSEB had replaced the electric post and had issued a repair bill for Rs.15,211/- to the complainant. The complainant had paid the amount to the office of Asst. Engineer , Electrical Section Kuthuparamba dtd.7/3/2023 itself. Thereafter the complainant filed a claim application before the OP. After receiving the claim application the OP demanded the complainant to collect all the material documents pertaining to the claim and to submit before their office. Then the complainant submit all the documents before the OP. But the OP rejected the claim to state that the FIR is missing that is the most essential document to process the claim. The complainant states that he already submitted all documents including the general diary issued by Kuthuparamba police also. But the OP treated the claim as “no claim “ and rejected the claim application. The act of OP, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice issued to OP . After receiving the notice OP appeared before the commission and filed his written version. He contended that the accident occurred on 6/3/2023 and on the same date on which the insurance policy commenced. On receipt of the claim application the complainant was asked to collect all the material documents pertaining to the claim and submit before them as earliest. But the complainant submit the claim form only on 13/3/2023 and the document submitted by the complainant, the FIR which is the most essential documents to process the claim was missing. Then the OP had issued a registered letter dtd.20/7/2023 to the complainant requesting to submit the FIR within 21 days from the receipt of the letter, failing which the claim of the complainant will be treated as no claim. But the complainant failed to furnish the FIR and the claim was treated as no claim. The repudiation of the claim was made as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as per the guide lines given by the IRDA. So there is no deficiency of service from the side of OP and the complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1to A6 were marked. On OP’s side Exts.B1&B2 marked.
Issue No.1:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as PW1 by OPs. He relied upon Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to PW1, in Ext.A1 is the policy the vehicle KL11J8881 was insured to OP. On 6/3/2023 at 4.15 P.M the vehicle met with an accident to hit an electric post of KSEB at Kuthuparamba, Kolathukav. Ext.A2 is the work estimate for changing damage 11KV pole in favour of PW1 dashing Maruti car KL11J8881. Ext.A3 is the demand notice issued by KSEB. Ext.A4 is the KSEB receipt(cash bill) paid the complainant to KSEB dtd.7/8/2023 for an amount of Rs.15,211/-. Ext.A5 is the General Diary issued by Kuthuparamba policy station. Ext.A6 is the repudiation letter issued by the OP to complainant dtd.7/8/2023. On OP’s side except the version the OP not produce any evidence before the commission . The OP submits that there is no deficiency of service on his part and produce Exts.B1&B2 document. As per Ext.A4 it clearly shows that the complainant paid Rs.15211/- to KSEB for the replacement charge of the post. Moreover the OP’s licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor assess the extend of damage and net liability of the company, the claim of Rs.15,211/- is allowed and the report filed on 30/3/2023. Another investigator also submit report on 28/4/2023 also. On perusal of the pleadings, documents and evidence, we the commission hold that the complainant is the insurer who insured the vehicle to OP. The vehicle is damaged due to accident and hit on the electric post. Then the complainant paid Rs.15,211/- to KSEB. So we are of the considered view that the OP is liable to pay the remitted amount of Rs.15,211/- to the complainant. But the OP failed to do . So we hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3:
As discussed above the complainant is insured his vehicle to OP. The accident occurred on 6/3/2023 and the complainant paid the amount to KSEB on 7/3/204. So,we hold that the OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the amount already deposited to KSEB for an amount of Rs.15,211/- from the OP. Therefore, we hold that the OP is liable to pay Rs.15,211/- to the complainant along with Rs.7000/ as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost. Thus issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.15211/- to the complainant (that is already deposited before the KSEB) along with Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.15,211/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Insurance policy
A2-Work estimate
A3-Notice issued by KSEB
A4- Electricity bill
A5-General diary
A6- Repudiation letter
B1- Policy
B2- Repudiation letter dtd.7/8/2023
PW1-Sasi.K.P- complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
