DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 31st day of January, 2023
C.C. 479/2016
Complainant
Rahul. P. K,
S/o P. V. Krishnankutty,
Sudarsanam,
P.O. Pantheerankavu,
Kozhikode – 673019.
(By Adv. Sri. L.S. Bhagaval Das & Adv. Sudheeshkumar. P)
Opposite Parties
- Manager,
M/s Bajaj Allience General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
5th Floor, M Sons Arcade, Cherooty Road,
Calicut – 673001.
- Manager,
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
324/1D Subairah Road, Chamaraja Mohalla,
Mysore – 570024.
- Manager,
M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd.,
Head Office,
G.E. Plaza, Yerawhop,
PUNE – 411006.
(By Adv. Sri. Thomas Mathew)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 25/06/2016 while the complainant was driving his pickup van bearing registration No. KL-10 AM 9673, a Volks Wagon Polo car bearing registration No. KA- 09-MC 1312 hit on his vehicle causing severe damage to his vehicle. The accident occurred in the NH in front of the Assisi Hospital, Gundalpet. The complainant also sustained minor injuries and was rushed to the hospital. On getting discharge from the hospital, he came to know that he had been charge sheeted by the police for the offence of rash and negligent driving.
3. The vehicle of the complainant was insured with the first opposite party and he reported the accident to the insurance company and claimed compensation for the damage to the vehicle. The first opposite party directed the complainant to contact the second opposite party and accordingly further dealings were with the second opposite party.
4. The second opposite party did not turn up for a long time to take out the survey of the damage caused to the vehicle and to act upon the claim preferred. Later, the company sent one Manjunath to make the survey report, who assessed an unfair valuation without properly verifying the damage. The company acted upon this data to compute the compensation. Later, he came to know that the actual surveyor was one Guruswami MS and that Manjunath was deputed by him for the inspection.
5. For several days, the vehicle was kept idle with no repair work. There was no response till 07/09/2016 on which date he issued a letter to the insurance company. The company estimated a meagre sum as compensation and later they enhanced it to Rs.1.5 lakh, but that was far below the required standards.
6. The complainant was compelled to garage the vehicle for repair works in a standard workshop at his own accord and got it repaired for a total amount of Rs. 2,38,400/-. The complainant was in written agreement with one Paragon Ceramics Pvt. Limited for hiring his vehicle for 25 days in a month under an estimated km run of 500 daily @ Rs.20/- per km. Due to this accident and inordinate delay in getting the vehicle repaired, he was put to great loss. He had to pay salary of the appointed driver @ Rs. 18,000/- per month. Till now the complainant has calculated the loss at Rs. 10,61,500/- besides Rs. 2 lakh being the compensation for hardship and mental agony suffered. He is limiting the claim to Rs. 10,00,000/-. There was breach of duty and negligence on the part of the insurance company and hence they are liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to him.
7. The opposite parties have resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them. They have denied any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. The policy is admitted. The accident is also admitted. The allegation that for a long time the survey was not conducted is not correct. As soon as the matter was reported, Sri. Guruswami MS was deputed to assess the loss. After the inspection, the loss was assessed as Rs - 1,84,872/-. The allegation that it was one Manjunath who conducted the survey is false and hence denied.
8. The opposite parties have informed the complainant that they are willing to pay Rs. 1, 84, 872/- as per the survey report and had requested him to submit documents for payment. But the complainant did not produce those documents and hence the amount was not paid. The company is ready to pay the amount, provided the complainant submits the required documents.
9. The insured declared value of the vehicle is Rs. 3 00,000/-. The estimate given for the work is for Rs. 2,65,200/-. The company had offered to pay the amount much earlier, but the complainant insisted on total loss. Total loss could be paid only if the assessed damage is more than 75%. The delay was caused only because the complainant was insisting on total loss. The allegation that the vehicle was repaired in another workshop spending an amount of Rs. 2,38,400/- is false and hence denied. The allegation that he had to pay salary for his driver is false and hence denied. The further allegation that he had sustained mental agony and hardship is false and hence denied. The calculation of the compensation is baseless. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint.
10. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
11. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of the PWs 1 and 2 and Exts A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was let in by the opposite parties. Ext B1 and B2 were marked.
12. Heard.
13. Point No. 1 : The complainant has approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the opposite parties alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in the matter of processing and sanctioning the claim preferred by him in connection with the damage caused to his vehicle in a road traffic accident.
14. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. PW2 is the forman of Star Auto Works, Gundalpet and he deposed supporting the complainant. Ext A1 is the copy of the registration certificate, Ext A2 is the copy of the driving licence, Ext A3 is the copy of the certificate cum policy schedule, Ext A4 series are bills issued by Star Auto Works, Gundalpet and Ext A5 series are the photographs. Ext B1 is the opinion/preliminary report of the surveyor and loss assessor and Ext B2 is the copy of the letter dated 25/11/2016 issued by the surveyor to the complainant.
15. The fact that KL -10 AM-9673 pickup van owned by the complainant was involved in a road traffic accident on 25/06/2016 at Gundalpet is admitted. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties at the time of the accident. That extensive damage was caused to the vehicle in the accident is admitted. It was a collision with a car. The complainant was charge sheeted by the police for the offence of rash and negligent driving. The accident was reported to the insurance company and a claim for own damage was preferred by the complainant. There is no serious dispute on the above aspects.
16. The grievance of the complainant is that there was delay on the part of the insurance company in processing the claim and even the surveyor and loss assessor inspected the vehicle only after long delay. Even after that, the processing was delayed and nothing was heard from the opposite parties in spite of contacting them. On going through the evidence in hand, we are of the view that the grievance of the complainant in this regard is genuine. As we have already stated, the accident was on 25/06/2016. PW1 has asserted that the accident was informed to the insurance company without any delay. The insurance company has no case that the accident was not reported to them in time. But it is noticed that there was inordinate delay even to inspect the vehicle and prepare the survey report. It took more than one month’s time to take out survey and this is evident from Ext B1 report. The surveyor and loss assessor inspected the vehicle only on 29/07/2016 after a lapse of one month during which period, the vehicle had to be kept idle. It also in evidence that after Ext B1 report, there was no progress in the matter. The negligence and latches on the part of the insurance company in not promptly processing the claim constitutes deficiency of service.
17. PW1 has alleged that the vehicle was inspected for the purpose of preparing the survey report by one Manjunath, a surveyor appointed by the company. But this is stoutly denied by the company which has asserted that the survey was made and the report was prepared by Sri. Guruswami MS, an approved surveyor and loss assessor deputed by them. Ext B1 report shows that the vehicle was inspected and the report was prepared by Sri. Guruswami MS and not by Sri. Manjunath, as alleged by the complainant. So the allegation of the complainant in this regard appears to be without any basis.
18. It is the case of the complainant and is in evidence that due to the delay in processing the claim and in the absence of any response from the insurance company, the complainant got the vehicle repaired at his own accord spending a total amount of Rs. 2,38,400/-. Ext A4 series are the bills for the same issued by Star Auto Works, Gundalpet. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at Ext B1. The surveyor assessed the damage to the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 1,86,030/- after deducting depreciation. It cannot be disputed that depreciation has to be taken in to account. Therefore, according to us, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,86,030/- for the damage sustained to his vehicle, as per the policy.
19. The complainant has a case that there was written agreement with Paragon Ceramics Pvt Ltd for hiring his vehicle for 25 days in a months for an estimated km run of 500 daily @ Rs. 20/- per km and due to the delay in getting the vehicle repaired, he has sustained heavy loss. Further he has got a case that he had to pay salary to the driver appointed by him @ Rs. 18,000/- per month. But there is absolutely no evidence in support of the claim. Even though the complainant claims that there was a written agreement, no such agreement is forthcoming. At the time of the accident, the complainant himself was driving the vehicle and there is no evidence that he had appointed a driver. So the claim in this regard is only to be rejected.
20. But as we have already stated, that the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1, 86,030/- being the loss assessed in Ext B1 report in connection with the damage sustained to the vehicle. Apart from this, there was inordinate delay on the part of the company in processing the claim, which, undoubtedly has resulted in gross mental agony and hardship to the complainant, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
21. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC 479/2016 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,86,030/- (Rupees one lakh eight six thousand and thirty only) being the loss assessed by the surveyor, with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of the complaint ie 03/11/2016 till actual payment.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
d) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 31st day of January, 2023.
Date of Filing: 03/11/2016.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the registration certificate.
Ext. A2 – Copy of the driving licence.
Ext. A3 – Copy of the certificate cum policy schedule.
Ext. A4 series – Bills issued by Star Auto Works, Gundalpet.
Ext. A5 series – Photographs.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 – Opinion/ Preliminary report dated 04/08/2016.
Ext. B2 – Registered letter dated 25/11/2016.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Rahul. P. K.
PW2 – Siju Shekar.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
