Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

104/2011

Dr.M.Ramaswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundram Alliance Co . Ltd & Other - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

02 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 28.01.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 02.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.104 /2011

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 02^ND DAY OF MAY 2018

                                 

Dr. M. Ramaswamy, M.D. (Hom.),

S/o. Mr. O. Muthu,

Residing at: “Indraprasth”,

No.38/4, Old North Police Station Road,

Karaikudi – 630 001,

Karaikudi Taluk,

Sivagangai District,

And having Office at:

 “Indraprasth”,

No.38/3, Old North Police Station Road,

Karaikudi – 630 001,

Karaikudi Taluk,

Sivagangai District.                                                .. Complainant.                                                

 

                                            ..Versus..

 

1. The General Manager,

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Sundaram Towers,

Nos.45 and 46, Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2.  The Manager,  

M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd.,

T.V.S. Co-operative Stores Building,

No.37, Krishna Rao Tank Street,

Madurai – 625 001.                                             ..  Opposite parties.

          

For complainant                      :  Party in person

Counsel for Opposite parties  :  M/s. M.B. Gopalan & others

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a sum of Rs.98,906/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

 

The complainant submits that, he is the owner of the vehicle Cheverolet Optra Magnum 2.OTCDI Private Car bearing Registration No. TN 63 T 4402 which was insured with opposite parties for the period from 05.10.2007 to 04.10.2009 consecutively for 2 years.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 27.08.2009 and was duly informed to the opposite party; inturn Surveyor also appointed by the opposite party who inspected the vehicle.   The complainant also submitted the claim form for the accident dated:27.08.2009.   The complainant further submits that on 25.9.2009, the said vehicle met with another accident and the vehicle was taken to T.V. Sundaram Motors, No.180, Anna Salai, Chennai.  On intimation to the opposite party, due surveyor also appointed and inspected the vehicle.  Due claim form also submitted by the complainant for the repair works.  The opposite party without settling the claim, turned hostile.  Even after repeated requests, demands and letters by the complainant there was no response.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:20.04.2010.  Both the opposite parties did not respond to the complainant.  Since the opposite parties, have not complied the request of the complainant even after admitting the subsistence of policy amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint is filed.

  2.    The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.The opposite parties submit that admittedly the policy is subsisting for the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 63 T 4402.   Immediately after the receipt of intimation with regard to accident dated:27.08.2009, this opposite party appointed a Surveyor, conducted survey and enquiry and the claim was under process.  While so, the said vehicle met with another accident dated:25.09.2009 for which also, the surveyor was appointed and due enquiry conducted and the damages also accessed.  Since the second claim also was the same as of the first claim this opposite party closed the first claim.  Further the opposite parties submit that based on the survey report and nature of damages, the claim was settled at Rs.18700/- on 10.11.2009 and the said amount was paid in favour of M/s. T.V. Sundaram Motors, Chennai.   The opposite parties are not liable for deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.      The point for consideration is:

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.98,906/- towards compensation as prayed for with cost?

5.      On point:

Heard both sides.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The learned  counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 63 T 4402, which was insured with opposite parties for the period from 05.10.2007 to 04.10.2009 consecutively for 2 years is admitted by the opposite party.  Further the learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the said vehicle met with an accident on 27.08.2009 and was duly informed to the opposite party; inturn due surveyor also appointed by the opposite party who inspected the vehicle.   The complainant also submitted the claim form as per Ex.B2.   The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended that on 25.9.2009 the said vehicle met with another accident and the vehicle was taken to T.V. Sundaram Motors, No.180, Anna Salai, Chennai. On intimation to the opposite party due surveyor also appointed and inspected the vehicle.   Due claim form also submitted for repair works as per Ex.B3.  The opposite party without settling the claim, turned hostile.  Evenafter repeated requests, demands and letters, there was no response.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:20.04.2010 as per Ex.A8.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.47,906/- against the T.V. Sundaram Motors, Chennai bill no.026291 dated:29.10.2009 as per Ex.A5. with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost.  The complainant also produced the job estimate given by ARS motors Ex.A1 & Ex.A3 invoice and  receipt given by T.V Sundaram Motors as per Ex.A6 to  Ex.A8 to prove the accident and expenditure incurred towards repair works. Since the opposite party, has not complied the request of the complainant evenafter admitting the subsistence of policy and accident it amounts to deficiency in service. 

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the policy is subsisting for the vehicle bearing registration no.TN 63 T 4402.   Immediately after the receipt of intimation with regard to accident dated:27.08.2009, this opposite party appointed a Surveyor, who conducted survey, investigation and enquiry and the claim was under process.  While so, the said vehicle met with another accident dated:25.09.2009 for which also, the surveyor was appointed and due enquiry conducted and the damages also accessed.  Since the second claim also was the same as of the first claim this opposite party closed the first claim.  But the opposite party has not produced any record to prove on what basis, the first claim was closed.  Equally, the opposite party has not produced any surveyor report for the first claim.  Further the contention of opposite party is that based on the surveyor report and nature of damages, the claim was settled for Rs.18700/- on 10.11.2009 as per Ex.A5 and the said amount was paid in favour of M/s. T.V. Sundaram Motors, Chennai.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A5, it is seen that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.47,906/- for which, the opposite party has not produced any proper record  for due assessment of damages  towards both claim.   As per Ex.B5, office note and liability summary there is nothing in detail regarding the first accident and the claim.  Equally, on what basis the claim was restricted against the invoices issued by T.V Sundaram Motors, Chennai also has not been explained.    The surveyor report, Ex.B4 is absolutely silent regarding the nature of damage and what are the spare parts utilized for the said repair establishes the deficiency in service.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum  is of the considered view that, the opposite party shall pay a sum of (Rs.47,906/- - Rs.18,700/-) =Rs.29,206/- with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.29,206/-(Rs.47,906/- - Rs.18,700/-) (Rupees twenty nine thousand two hundred and six only) to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                         PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	27.08.2009	Copy of Job estimate given by ARAS Motors (P) Ltd., Madurai
Ex.A2	27.08.2009	Copy of letter from ARAS Motors (P) Ltd., Madurai to the complainant
Ex.A3	27.08.2009	Copy of estimate given by ARAS Motors (P) Ltd., Madurai to the complainant
Ex.A4	12.09.2009	Copy of the letter from the complainant to Mr. Viswanathan chief Surveyor of M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Madurai with COP
Ex.A5	29.10.2009	Copy of invoice dated:29.10.2009 given by TVS Sundaram Motors for the second claim made after adjusting advance payment of Rs.10,000/-
Ex.A6	29.10.2009	Copy of receipt given by Sundaram Motors for Rs.37,906/-
Ex.A7	18.11.2009	Copy of letter from the complainant to the 1st opposite party with COP
Ex.A8	20.04.2010	Copy of legal notice to the opposite parties
Ex.A9	24.04.2010	Copy of postal receipt for sending the said notice to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A10		Copy of postal acknowledgement for the said notice served on the 1st opposite party
Ex.A11	24.04.2010	Copy of the postal receipt for sending the said notice to the 2nd opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.B1		Copy of insurance policy
Ex.B2	27.08.2009	Copy of claim form
Ex.B3	06.10.2009	Copy of claim form
Ex.B4	06.10.2009	Copy of survey report
Ex.B5	06.11.2009	Copy of office note and liability summary

  

 

MEMBER –I                                                                         PRESIDENT