Date of filing: 27-5-2017 Date of Order:30-11-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA, Y. S. R. DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
THURSDAY THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 39 / 2017
Smt. D. Rajeswari, W/o Vishnu Prasad Reddy,
8/887, Quarters of Chairman,
Permanent Lok Adalat,
Industrial Estate Road,
(or ) court compound, Kadapa. … Complainant.
Vs.
The General Manager,
M/s Universal Sompo,
General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Unit No.401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex,
127 Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri (East), MUMBAI-400 059. ….. Opposite party.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 15-11-2017 in the presence of Complainant appeared in person, and Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa for opposite party, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs.1,81,635/- as compensation for deficiency of service in respect of insurance policy issued by O.P. to the complainant, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows; The Complainant was the owner of car bearing No.AP04 AG 3339 registered in R.T.O. Office, Kadapa. The complainant purchased private car insurance package for the above car on 28-9-2016 from the opposite party by paying policy premium through her bank account at HDFC bank branch at kadapa, and opposite party issued policy no.USG/WEBAG/0093195/00/00 for the period from 9-2-2016 to 8-2-2017. But on 26-1-2017 the complainants car met with an accident at Gowravaram, Nellore District. Regarding accident to the above car the complainant submitted claim form to the opposite party by enclosing the repairs estimate issued by the service centre at Guntur dt.28-1-2017 (LM Auto cars Pvt. Ltd.,) for the value of Rs.2,65,435-50ps. The Opposite Party registered the above claim as bearing No.160292366. However the opposite party without in the absence of complainant and in her absence and without her consent engaged an officer of their choice and managed the workshop people and deleted several items of enlisted repairs required for the damages sustained by the insured car in spite of e-mail request from the husband of complainant to arrange for joint inspection. Because of the indulgence of the officer of the opposite party company the damaged parts of the car are not repaired properly and finally the cost of repair was illegal reduced to Rs.1,33,090/- from the estimated value of Rs.2,65,435.50 ps. and the car was inadequately repaired. Dissatisfied with the attitude of the officer of the O.P. and the repairs inadequately done to the car, the complainant suffered mental agony and was constrained to sell the car in distress and incurred of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3) It is further stated that the O.P. has credited Rs.1,07,800/- to the bank account of complainant in respect of Rs.133,090/- cost of the repair to the damaged car. The expenditure of Rs.10,000/- incurred for toeing the insured car to the nearby service station at Guntur is not reimbursed by the O.P. to the complainant. Further the complainant incurred Rs.14,000/- for engaging alternative vehicle during the period of repairs of insured car for 7 days at the cost of Rs.2,000/- per day and that amount was also not allowed. The complainant under gone mental agony due to the attitude of the O.P. and complainant estimated same at Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant issued legal notice on 20-3-2017 calling upon Opposite party to pay Rs.2,81,635/-. The Opposite Party has not paid the same. Therefore, this complaint for the above reliefs.
4) The Opposite Party filed counter/Written Version denying the allegations regarding deficiency in service on their part causing mental agony and their liability to pay an amount of Rs.2,81,635/- as claimed by the complainant and called upon her to prove all of them. But the O.P. admitted the complainant is the owner of the car bearing No. AP04 AG 3339 and she insured the car from 9-2-2016 to 8-2-2017 under policy No.2311/55801738/00/000 and the car is covered insurance at the time of accident, but subject to terms and conditions.
5) The O.P. further contended that they received claim form intimation from the complainant and immediately the Opposite party has appointed one G. Venkateswara Rao, Insurance Surveyor and he submitted his report noting of damages to the vehicle and quantified damages at Rs.1,10,872/-. Then the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant on 16-2-2017 for providing the documents which are required to process the claim of complainant. LM private cars Ltd repaired the complainant car and issued detail bill to the complainant for Rs.1,33,090/- only and complainant paid the same and the complainant sent the said bill to the O.P. company and after receipt of the same, the claim of complainant was processed by the O.P. and settled the claim of complainant for Rs.1,07,800/- based on the repair bill produced by the complainant towards full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant after deduction of the policy excess and the same was credited to complainants bank account. But complainant got issued notice on 22-2-2017 with all false allegations, so also notice Dt. 20-3-2017 with coercive tactic to pressurize for unlawful gain. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this O.P. The payment of compensation is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and subject to depreciation of damaged parts. The complainant is liable to be dismissed against this O.P. as non- joinder of S.B.I. who is financier to the car. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
6) No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant her affidavit is filed and got marked Ex. A1 to Ex.A5. On behalf of the O.P. Ex. B1 to Ex.B5 documents are marked. The complainant filed written arguments, O.P. not filed written arguments.
7) Heard arguments on both sides, and perused the material on record and considered the written arguments filed.
8) The points that arise for determination are ;
- Whether is there is any deficiency on the part of O.P. in settling the claim of complainant as pleaded by complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims against the O.P., if so what extent?
iii) To what relief?
9) Point No.1 :- It is contended by complainant that she paid total premium amount of Rs.15,131/- to her car towards insurance with O.P. and O.P. issued policy with nil depreciation in claiming the repairs of the insured vehicle under Ex. A1 and Ex.B1, (Ex.A1 and Ex,B1 are same document of policy) and the vehicle which was met with an accident sustained lot of damage to its parts and as per Ex. A2 submitted estimation of repairs to the tune of Rs.2,65,435-50ps. including labour charges but the O.P. allowed the claim only for Rs.1,07,800 unilaterally without any basis. And the complainant incurred Rs.14,000/- for engaging private vehicle during the period of repair and also incurred Rs.10,000/- for shifting the vehicle to the mechanical shop and the same is proved by the complainant and even admitted by O.P. in the written version and the documents filed by them. Therefore the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of O.P. and complainant is entitled for the total claim.
10) Per contra learned counsel for O.P. contended that as per surveyors report Ex. A3, the complainant was entitled only to the extent of Rs.1,07,800/- though the total bill amount was Rs.1,33,89.74ps. Therefore the same was credited to the account of complainant and that was actual damage caused to the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the policy under Ex. A1 and B1 and the complainant accepted the same but filed this case without basis for wrongful gain. Hence, no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and complainant is not entitled for the claims and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11) In this case, there is no dispute that the complainant is the owner of car bearing no. AP04 AG 3339 and the same was insured with O.P. under Ex.A1, and Ex.B1 policy and the said policy is nil depreciation service premium policy and the O.P. paid total Rs.15,131/- towards the above said policy premium. It is also not in dispute that the above car of complainant met with accident on 26-1-2017 and at the time of accident the policy under Ex. A1 was in force as the policy covers the risk from 9-2-2016to 8-2-2017.
12) It is further admitted by O.P. that complainant shifted the car to the repair shop at Guntur and complainant sent estimation of the damaged spare parts of the car at Rs.2,65,435/- including labour charges. However the O.P. without settling the claim as per estimated cost under Ex.A2 issued by the manager work shop and service centre, Guntur appointed a surveyor of his own choice without notice to the complainant or consent of her and got report under Ex.B3 send an amount of Rs.1,07,800/- in total to the account of complainant and thus settled the claim of complainant.
13)It is the case of the complainant that the above settlement by O.P. by sending Rs.1,07,800/- to the bank account of complainant basing on the surveyors report without notice of complainant or knowledge of complainant unilaterally against the claim of Rs.2,65,635-50 ps. as estimated by the manager work shop and service centre amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore the O.P. caused lot of mental agony apart from financial loss to her. Though the O.P. contended that as per terms and conditions of policy under Ex. A1 and Ex.B1 the claim was settled and complainant is not entitled for any other claims. But the above contention does not hold water because the estimation under Ex. A2 was issued by technical expert after observing and verifying the damaged car in the accident and gave estimation with all particulars of spare parts required for the vehicle and estimated the same at Rs.2,65,435-50ps. including labour charges. However the O.P. did not consider the same and on his own accord without knowledge and notice of complainant appointed a surveyor of his own choice and got estimated the repairs at Rs.1,33,090/- but paid Rs.1,07,800/- to the bank account of complainant as per exhibit B3 report. But a perusal of Ex.B3 does not create confidence that the surveyor had taken all the aspects of the required spare parts for the damage vehicle. Therefore Ex.B3 report cannot be taken into consideration to settle the claim by reducing the claim drastically for an amount of Rs.1,07,800/- in spite of estimation was given for Rs.2,65,435/-. There is no evidence what is authenticity of the surveyor who issued Ex.B3 report to reduce the claim of complainant from Rs.2,65,435-50ps. to 1,07,800/-. As seen from Ex.A1, policy issued by O.P. the policy was nil depreciation policy and complainant paid a huge premium of Rs.15,139/-, if such is the case when the policy is for nil depreciation service policy, the surveyor cannot reduce depreciation on spare parts. Under Ex.A2 estimation for the repairs of insured car issued by manager work shop and service centre, Guntur clearly goes to show that the above damage car requires number of spare parts and estimated the repairs cost to the tune of Rs.2,65,435-50 ps. including labour charges of Rs.36,742-50ps. But the O.P. who is the insurer of the damaged car has not properly got repaired the car but obtained bill for the damaged car to lesser amount by engaging his own surveyor and estimated the same only at Rs.1,33,090/- and paid Rs.1,07,800/- to the account of complainant and appointing surveyor without knowledge of consent of complainant for getting repairs of the damaged car and not taking into consideration the estimation for the repairs cost of spare parts under Ex.A2 by O.P. is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. towards insured i.e., the complainant in this case. Thus the complainant caused lot of mental agony apart from financial loss to the complainant. Therefore, she was force to sell away the car for lesser amount. Thus we hold there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. and complainant established the same. Accordingly point is answered in favour of complainant.
14)Point No.2:- In point no.1, it is held that the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party in settling her claim in respect of her damaged car properly and the estimated repair cost of the complainant was Rs.2,65,435-50ps, but the O.P. paid to the account of complainant an amount of Rs.1,07,800/- only. Therefore the O.P. is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,57,635-50 ps. for deficiency of service in respect of insurance policy issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Accordingly the complainant is entitled for the said amount. The complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- for shifting the car from the accident place to mechanic service centre at Guntur. Since the car was badly damaged the complainant must have incurred that much amount for toweing the insured car to the work shop centre at Guntur. Therefore the same is to be reimbursed by the O.P. as per the terms of policy. Hence, the complainant is entitled for that amount also. The complainant further claimed Rs.14,000/- for engaging a private vehicle for 7 days at Rs.2,000/- per day, but the complainant had not filed any evidence to prove the same that she engaged a private vehicle and incurred an expenditure of Rs.14,000/-. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the said claim as not proved. The complainant claimed Rs.100,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint. The claim for mental agony at Rs.100,000/- is on higher side. Though the complainant might have undergone mental agony for not settling the claim by O.P. but still the complainant is not entitled to that huge amount. However, considering the nature of deficiency in service and mentally caused to the complainant, we hold the complainant at best is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony in this case. Accordingly the said claim is allowed to that extent only, apart from cost of Rs.5,000/- towards filing of complaint against O.P. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of complainant.
15) Point No.3 :- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,67,635/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Five Only) i.e., (Rs.1,57,635/- towards estimated repair charges + Rs.10,000/- shifting charges) towards deficiency in service in respect of insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant, and shall also pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousands Only) for causing mental agony to the complainant, and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands Only) towards costs of this complaint within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 6% p.a. till payment. The rest of the claim of complainant is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 30th day of November, 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For complainant : NIL For opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex: A1:- P/c of Insurance policy dated issued by the opposite party company in
favour of the complainant.
Ex: A2:- The copy estimate for the repair of insured car dated 28-1-2017 issued
by the manager workshop and service centre, Guntur.
Ex: A3:- Receipt Dt. 28-1-2016 issued by the toeing contract for Rs.10,000/-
Ex: A4:- Office copy of the legal notice dated 28-2-2017 issued by the
complainant to the opposite party.
Ex: A5:- Postal ack. for proof of service of notice to the opposite party.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party : -
Ex:B1:- The copy of policy together the terms and conditions.
Ex:B2:- The original claim form submitted by the complainant.
Ex:B3:- The copy of the surveyor report with photographs.
Ex:B4:- The office copy of the letter dt.16-2-2017.
Ex:B5:- The tax invoice and repair bill issued by LM Auto Cars Pvt. Ltd., Guntur.
Ex:B6:- The office copy of the reply notice dt. 11-4-2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to
- Smt. D. Rajeswari, W/o Vishnu Prasad Reddy,
8/887, quarters of Chairman,
Permanent Lok Adalat, Industrial Estate Road,
(or ) court compound, Kadapa.
- Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa.
& & &
P. R.
