T MARIMUTHU Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant T. Marimuthu has insured his Ashok Leyland Cargo vehicle with the opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , for the period from 27.2.1996 to 26.2.1997 for a sum of Rs.4,15,000/-. The said vehicle met with a serious accident on 21.3.1996 within the limits of Kangeyam Police Station in which the vehicle was badly damaged. With the help of M/s. Malabar Engineering Works, the complainant brought the vehicle towing to M/s. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons, Trichy. According to the complainant, for that he spent a sum of Rs.6,000/-. Now the case of the complainant is that he sought for quotations from M/s. T. V. Sundaram lyengar and Sons, Trichy for repairing the vehicle. They quoted a sum of Rs.3,66,340/- indicating that anything can be done only after dismantling the engine. M/s. Thangarethinam Industries has quoted a sum of Rs.49,500/- for construction of body of the vehicle. Based on these quotations, on 11.4.1996, the complainant made a claim for Rs.4,15,840/- with the opposite party Insurance Company. The opposite party deputed a Surveyor to make an assessment of the damage, but the survey report has not been made available to the complainant. The further case of the complainant is that even though he made the claim on 11.4.1996, the claim has not been settled till date. On account of the said conduct of the opposite party, the complainant has been put to unnecessary inconvenience and irreparable loss. The complainant has prayed for an award for a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- being the insurance amount; Rs.6,000/- as towing charges, rent @ Rs.30/- per day charged by M/s. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons, Trichy for the space occupied by the vehicle; Rs.75,000/- towards misery created to the complainant by the delay caused by the opposite party in settling the matter and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the estimate charges paid to M/s. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons, Trichy.

(2.) The opposite party contended that they had arranged for spot survey and later a detailed survey of the assessment of the damage. However, the complainant never wanted a copy of the survey report and therefore the allegation that no copy of the survey report was made available to him was not correct. The opposite party took a decision to offer Rs.2,15,000/- and informed the same to the complainant, but by his letter dated 31.7.1996, the complainant declined to accept it. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the opposite party did not take proper action in settling the claim. As per the terms of the insurance policy, in a claim of own damages, it is open to the Insurance Company to process the claim in a manner appropriate according to their finding and treat the claim either as total loss or cash loss or to accept the market value or the insured value whichever is lesser. Therefore, it is not open to the complainant to insist upon a particular method of settlement. In the present case, the opposite party has relied on the report of the Surveyor which is clear and self explanatory. The complainant's claim of the entire insured amount viz. Rs.4,15,000/~ is not sustainable. The towing charges is restricted under the policy and the complainant cannot claim Rs.5,000/- (sic. Rs.6,000/- ). The further claim of Rs.5,000/- as charges for estimate and Rs.75,000/- as damages for the misery cannot be sustained.

(3.) The points that arise for consideration are: 1. whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? and 2. if so, what relief can be granted to the complainant?