UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MARAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite parties in O.P. No. 14/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karur, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: (a) He had insured his tractor TN -47 -F -2682 and trailer TN -47 -F2683 with the opposite party for the period from 19.12.2001 to 18.12.2002. An accident occurred on 3.1.2002 at 7 p.m. on Karur -Trichy main road near Renganathapuram Sub -road. The vehicle was carrying sugarcane from Renganathapuram to Pettavaithalai. After crossing the railway gate, the vehicle went out of control and capsized. On 4.1.2002 at about 10 a.m., the complainant met the opposite party in person and intimated about the accident. The opposite party deputed a surveyor M/s. Ravi Associates, who did spot survey on the same day. The survey report was given on 7.1.2002. As per the request of the opposite party, the complainant handed over his driver Chinnappan's statement dated 4.1.2002 at about 4.40 p.m. on the same date to the opposite party at Kulithalai. A complaint was also lodged before Mayanoor Police in Crime No. 4/2002. On 7.1.2002, the complainant submitted the workshop estimate for the tractor and the trailer and requested the opposite party to depute the surveyor for workshop inspection. On 11.1.2002 the complainant produced the claim form copies of F.I.R., Registration certificate, book, driving licence, and policy copy to the opposite party. On 17.1.2002 when the complainant approached the opposite party and reminded for workshop certificate, the opposite party requested the complainant to alter the date of the claim form as 17.1.2002 in place of 11.1.2002 for showing that there was no delay on their part in forwarding the claim form to the Divisional Office. The opposite party official himself altered the date as 17.1.2002 and got the signatures from the complainant. Subsequently, the opposite party sent a letter dateed 17.1.2002 to the complainant asking for explanation as to why the complainant had changed the driver's name as Chinnappan in the place of Anandan. The complainant did not know anybody by name Anandan. He also sent a reply explaining the true facts to the opposite party. After receiving the explanation letter, the opposite party on 24.1.2002 deputed surveyor Elango for inspecting and assessing the extent of loss at the workshop. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 98,663 and submitted his report to the opposite party. On 21.1.2002, the complainant submitted to the opposite party bills for repairs and made a claim for the same. He also told the opposite party that the tractor was driven at the time of accident only by Chinnappan and not by the alleged Anandan. The complainant submitted to the opposite party the statement of his driver namlly Chinnappan on 4.1.2002 evening itself. He did not submit any statement from any Anandan. The opposite party not having come forward to pay the claim, a notice was issued. The opposite party had committed deficiency in service in the following manner -(1) Having received the report of the complainant's driver Chinnappan, the opposite party had clandestinely mis -substituted one statement of driver Anandan, whom the complainant did not even know. (2) Having received all the documents including the bills for repair, etc., and accepted to pay the claim, now repudiating arbitrarily and without any basis; and (3) causing unnecessary and abnormal delay in the settlement of the claim. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed calling upon the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 98,663 being the loss caused to his vehicle as assessed by the surveyor with interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.2.2002 till realisation, Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as cost.

(2.) THE version was to the following effect: On 4.1.2002 the accident was intimated and M/s. Ravi Associates inspected the vehicle and submitted their report. It was false to say that the complainant handed over driver Chinnappan's statement dated 4.1.2002 to the surveyor. As per the report of the surveyor, the tractor and trailer were driven by one P. Anandan, s/o. Palaniappan, Nathamedu Railway Station, Melapalayam Post, Karur District. The said Anandan alone furnished his statement to the surveyor on 4.1.2002 itself. He was authorised to drive only motor -cycle with gear and light motor vehicle. No doubt, the complainant lodged a complaint with Mayanoor Police in Crime No. 4/2002. On coming to know about the false complaint, the opposite party sent a letter to the Inspector of Police with Mayanoor Police Station on 31.1.2002 setting out the real facts. Though the accident took place on 3.1.2002, the complaint to the police was made only on 10.1.2002 after 7 days from the date of accident. Even the RC book, driving licence of P. Anandan, were produced on 7.1.2002 by the son -in -law of the complainant viz. Kalimuthu for verification in the office of the opposite party. After knowing that Anandan did not have the requisite endorsement, the complainant falsely implicated another person with the name Chinnappan. It was false to state that the opposite party requested the complainant to alter the date of claim as 17.1.2002 in the place of 11.1.2002. On the other hand, the complainant came to the opposite party with the claim form and other enclosures in which the official of the opposite party noticed that they were dated l 1.1.2002. The complainant on his own volition altered the dates and got them attested. The opposite party deputed surveyor R.K. Elango for inspecting and assessing the extent of loss at workshop. As the driver who actually drove the tractor -cum -trailer namely Anandan was not holding a valid driving licence, the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim. There was no deficiency in service.

(3.) BEFORE the District Forum on the side of the complainant Exs. Al to A14 were marked while on the side of the opposite party Exs. Bl to B6 were marked.