IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of September, 2016
Filed on 02.07.2015
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.204/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Smt. Excy Alex M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance
Attumalikal Insurance Co. Ltd., Visranthi Melaram
Puthiyakavu, Mavelikara Towers, No.2/319, Rajeev Gandhi Salai
(By Adv. Varghese K. Samuel) Karappagam, Chennai – 600 097
(By Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
O R D E R SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is a policy holder of opposite party vide No.MOP 2471897 dated 19.8.2014 for the car owned by her. The insured car owned by the complainant met with an accident on 28.12.2014. Complainant spent Rs.45,146/- with M/s. Hercules Automobiles and got the vehicle repaired. While the complainant claimed insured amount, opposite party sent the reply on 13.1.2015 stating that the wreck is more the IDV our liability is nil and we closing this claim, as ‘No claim’ raising frivolous arguments. Complainant sent legal notice to opposite party which is not replied by them. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant had taken a private vehicle package policy for his Swift Vxi/Maruti Swift VXI from the opposite party. The insured vehicle has been severely damaged by the accident and as per the service estimate provided by the Hercules Automobiles Ltd. the expense for repair is Rs.60,176/-.
The IDV of the said vehicle is Rs.75,000/- and as per the policy terms and conditions annexed supra the insured can treat Private Car as Constructive Total Loss if the cost of retrieval exceeds 75% of IDV. Since the wreck value of the said vehicle was more than IDV, the liability of the opposite party is zero. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant’s vehicle was insured with the opposite party. It is also admitted fact that the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle Rs.75,000/-. According to the complainant the insured car met with an accident on 28.12.2014 and his claim for insured amount repudiated by the opposite party. Opposite party filed version stating that as per the service estimate provided by the Hercules Automobiles Ltd. the expense for the repair is Rs.60,176/- and as per the terms and condition the insured can treat private car as constructive total loss, if the cost of retrieval exceeds 75% of IDV. Opposite party produced the estimate provided by the Hercules Automobiles which marked as Ext.B3. Ext.B3 is dated 28.12.2014. The accident was on 28.12.2014. The GD entry – Ext.A2 evidenced the same. But according to the complainant he spent Rs.45,146/- with M/s. Hercules Automobiles Ltd., Alappuzha and got vehicle repaired. He produced the bill for Rs.45,146/- and it marked as Ext.A4. Ext.A4 was dated 7.1.2015. While cross examining the RW1 to the question put forward by the learned counsel of the complainant, “....................................................................…..............................................” In this case Ext.A4 dated 7.1.2015 shows that the complainant spent Rs.45,146/- for repairing the vehicle ie. below the 75% of IDV of vehicle. Ext.B2 is the vehicle. Ext. B2 is the claim form given by the complainant to the opposite party, it was dated 30.12.2014. It shows that opposite party got the knowledge of the accident on 30.12.2014. Itself Then the question remains is why the opposite party failed to send a surveyor to make estimate about the damage sustained to the vehicle. Without sending anybody to inspect the vehicle they are not expected to say the excuse that since the wreck value of the vehicle was more than IDV the liability of the opposite party is zero. As per Ext.A4, complainant spent Rs.45,146/- for repairing the vehicle. Since it was below the 75% of the IDV the opposite party ought to have satisfy the claim of the complainant. The repudiation of the claim by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.45,146/- (Rupees forty five thousand one hundred and forty six only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization and further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. Since the primary relief is granted no amount as to compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Alex Attumalikal (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the policy schedule
Ext.A2 - Copy of the GD Entry certificate
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Certificate of registration
Ext.A4 - Job card retail invoice
Ext.A5 - Copy of the notice dated 9.2.2015
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Prakash G.R. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the Policy schedule
Ext.B2 - Copy of the Claim form
Ext.B3 - Copy of the Service estimate
Ext.B4 - Copy of the e-mail dated 1.7.2015
Ext.B5 - Copy of the RPAD receipt
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by: Pr/-
Compared by:-
