IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Date of filing : 23/01/2019

Date of order : 26/12.2022

PRESENT:

Shri.D.B.Binu President

Shri. V.Ramachandran Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member

C.C.No.51/2019

COMPLAINANT

Agy George, Proprietor, M/s.Aeon Connect, HIG 39, 10^th Cross Road,
Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682 036 and residing at 14, Link Heights, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682 036

(By Adv.Arun Antony, ML Sajeevan & Associates, 3^rd Floor, Nedumchalil Chambers, Mullaserry Canal Road, M.G.Road)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1) M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Handicrafts Building, Opp. Tea Board, Indira Gandhi Road, Wellington Island, Ernakulam-682 003, rep. by its Branch Manager.

2) The Regional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Jazz Arcade, Bye Pass Road, Vytila, Kochi-682 019

3) M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Motor OD Claims Service HUB, 4^th Floor, Jos Trust Building, Opp.YMCA, Chittoor Road, Kochi-682 035, rep. by its Manager.

(Adv.Dr.P.V.Sasikumar, “saphalyam”, 37/2014 A2, Jawahar Nagar, Kadavanthra, Cochin-682 020)

F I N A L O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1) A brief history of the complaint is as stated below:

The complainant is a proprietor of M/s.Aeon Connect having its office at Panampilly Nagar, Kochi and is engaged in various business which includes inter state transport of passengers and allied services.

The complainant purchased a luxury bus of the make ‘SCANIA’ manufactured by a Swedish company, bearing registration No.KL7/CA 1649. The above vehicle was insured with the 1^st opposite party Company vide Policy No.1002023114P112002943, for the period from 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016.

On 08.06.2015 at 4 p.m. while insured vehicle driven by Sri.Alagaripandi R (holder of driving licence No.TN 39 20010020915 valid till 29.12.2016) reached Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, had met with an accident and due to this accident the front wind shield and left hand rear view mirror got damaged. The complainant had garaged at KSR Automobiles, Basuregadi, Hyderabad, the authorized service center of SCANIA vehicles and the vehicle was inspected. Taking into account the fact that the passengers would be stranded vehicle was not left for spot inspection at the accident site. The insurance company was informed about the accident on the same day and the vehicle was inspected. Even though repeated calls were made to the 1^st opposite party Company, regarding the status and claim for damages, no information was received except the information that the claim is being processed. At least, on 27.10.2016, the complainant had received a registered letter dated 27.10.2016 from the 3^rd opposite party stating that the insurance automobiles were not informed about the accident and loss, that they had not appointed any Surveyor that in such circumstance, they are unable to settle the claim and that the complainant’s claim stood repudiated. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, complainant issued a reply letter on 12.04.2017 and that was also ignored by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant had filed this complaint before the Commission with prayers to set aside the A2 letter dated 27.10.2016 and to allow the claim made by the complainant and to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,69,864/- along with 12% interest from the date of accident and Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

2) Notice

Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party appeared and filed their version.

3) Version of the opposite party

This complaint is seen written dated January 2019 without inserting any date. The date of reported accident is 08.06.2015 and the repudiation letter is dated 27.10.2016. the complainant has claimed that he had sent a letter to the grievance cell without producing any evidence. In any case, as per the Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1993 and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the petition is now time barred and cannot be admitted and as such is likely to be dismissed. It is admitted that the complainant (insured) had taken an insurance policy bearing no. 1002023114P112002943 valid for the period from 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016 for his luxury bus, make “SCANIA”, with the registration Number KL07CA 1649 from the opposite party 1. The complainant had made an averment in para 5, “taking into account the fact that the passengers would be stranded, the vehicle was not left for spot inspection at the accident spot.” But the responsible driver of the bus could have easily taken at least the photographs digitally by the mobile phone at the accident spot, showing clearly the location and the actual damages to the insured vehicle to enable the opposite party understand the nature of the accident and extent of damages. It was true that the claim processing was delayed as the survey report was received only on 19.08.2016 (ie., after 14 months of the reported date of accident). It may please be noted that claim processing can be done and completed by the opposite party only after the receipt and verification of all necessary documents including survey report as per the policy terms and conditions. The opposite party has very clearly stated in the repudiation letter dated 27.10.2016 all the reasons for the denial of the claim of the insured. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party as he had not complied with all the requirements as per the terms and conditions of the policy and also due to the non submission of various documents for the verification of the opposite party. The complainant has not put his signature and date below the undertaking given by the petitioner. Further the opposite party in his above said repudiation letter has clearly stated that the complainant (insured) had not submitted the original RC, Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate, permit and tax token details etc. for the verification of the opposite party. All the above said documents should also have been kept ready for presenting to the surveyor during survey as clearly given in the instructional sheet attached to the claim form. From the survey report, it is clearly evident that the surveyor was not presented with the original RC, DL and badge of the driver (as in the report it is written as RC-Xerox verified, DL Xerox verified, badge validity year illegible). In the survey report and in the petition filed now, the driving licence no. is written as TN39 20010020915, where as in the claim form the DL no. is written as TN 59 20010020915. TN 59 refers to RTO Madurai and TN 39 refers to RTO Thiruppur. As per the survey report,the net loss assessed by the surveyor for the reported damages is Rs.1,67,864/- the complainant has claimed a loss for a false amount of Rs.1,69,864/- in this petition. In view of the above detailed genuine reasons given by the opposite party for the repudiation of the claim of the complainant and the claim petition not sustainable and is time barred.

4) Evidence

The case posted for the evidence of the complainant to 31.03.2021. The Commission has granted 6 chances to adduce evidence from their side. The Commission has issued notice to the Learned Counsel for the complainant (Adv.Arun Antony ML Sajeevan & Associates, M.G.Road, Ernakulam) on 21.11.2021 and the said notice was seen served on 23.11.2021 as per proof of delivery of the Postal Department. The Commission has also noticed that the complainant is continuously absenting from the date of first posting of the case itself. Hence the Commission decided to consider the documents filed along with the complaint and that documents marked as Exbt.A1 to A11 and the case posted for Hearing to 17.11.2022. On the date of hearing also neither the complainant nor his counsel was present and the Commission decided to heard the opposite party’s counsel. Heard.

5) The issues to be considered in this case are as follows:

1) Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved towards the complainant from the side of the opposite parties?

2) If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we consider issue Nos. (1) and (2) together.

6) Issue Nos. (1) and (2)

The opposite party had issued an insurance policy No. 1002023114P112002943, for the period from 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016 for the complainant’s bus ‘SCANIA’ with a registration No. KL 07 CA 1649. The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that the claim form was not signed by the complainant eventhough the date of accident of the complainant’s vehicle was within the policy period. We have perused the available documents filed by the complainant. Exbt.A2 is the repudiation letter dated 27.10.2016 issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant by the following reasons.

1) Claim form is not signed by the insured.

2) The insured has not intimated the insurance company about the accident.

3) The complainant has not submitted the original RC, DL, Fitness Certificate, Permit and Tax Token details for verification. Exbt.A3 is the clarification. On perusal of Exbt.A3 claim form we have observed that the claim form submitted is not dated and signed by the complainant. Exbt.A6 is a true copy of Motor Survey and Loss assessment report. In the survey report the driving license No is written as TN 39 20010020915 whereas in the Exbt.A3 Claim form the driving license No. is written as TN5920010020915. In paragraph 4 of the complaint, the driving license No. is shown as TN39 20010020915. As per Survey Report the net loss assessed by the Surveyor for the reported damage is Rs.1,67,864/-. The complainant has claimed a loss for an amount of Rs.1,69,864/- in the complaint.

From the available documents filed by the complainant no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved towards the complainant from the side of the opposite party. There is no merit in the case and hence we are of the considered view that the case of the complainant is to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 26^th day of December 2022.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil