Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice A. Raman,
President & Tmt. R. Vanaroja, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.—Appellants
versus
G. RAJARAMAN—Respondent
A.P. No. 56 of 2000—Decided on 30.12.2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In Person.
The liability of the Insurance Company to pay for vehicle damages is subject to depreciation, and claims for loss of business and mental agony require supporting evidence.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Vehicle Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 146 - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64VB - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 146, The Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64VB, The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured with the opposite party National Insurance Company. After an accident, the complainant claimed for repair charges, loss of business, and compensation for hardship and mental agony. The opposite parties disputed the claim, citing depreciation and lack of evidence for business loss and mental agony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Insurance Company was liable to pay a reduced amount based on depreciation, and rejected the claims for loss of business and mental agony due to lack of evidence. The court partially allowed the appeal, directing the opposite parties to pay a reduced sum with interest and rejecting the other reliefs claimed by the complainant.
Issues: Dispute over insurance claim amount, depreciation, and validity of claims for loss of business and mental agony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay a reduced amount based on depreciation, and rejected the claims for loss of business and mental agony due to lack of evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was partially allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay a reduced sum with interest and rejecting the other reliefs claimed by the complainant.
Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The complainant had insured his vehicle, a two-wheeler, with the opposite party National Insurance Company. The vehicle viz., Bajaj 4S Champion motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-33-F-40, was involved in an accident. Immediately, the complainant informed of the same to the Insurance Company and sent the relevant documents. The Surveyor by name Mr. Gopalakrishnan appointed by the opposite parties surveyed and sent a report. The vehicle was left with M/s. Moorthy & Moorthy for repairs and they sent a bill for Rs. 21,016/-. But the Surveyor was quite indifferent and behaved improperly towards the complainant. The complainant was dragged to the office of the opposite parties on account of which the complainant was put to hardship and mental agony. On 25.6.1998, the 1st opposite party called upon the complainant to produce the vehicle for re-inspection. After six weeks, on 5.8.1998, they sent a voucher for Rs. 14,501/-. Since this amount of Rs. 14,501/- fell short of the actual expenses incurred by the complainant, he did not sign the voucher. Thus, the complainant was dragged to the office of the opposite parties and he was treated badly by the opposite parties and, therefore, the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the said sum of Rs. 21,060/- spent towards the repair charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of business and Rs. 25,000/- for deficiency of service and as compensation for hardship and mental agony together with costs.
2. The opposite parties opposed the claim stating as follows : The complainant had insured his vehicle by taking a policy from the 1st opposite party under policy No. 501401/97/6201464 for the period from 5.6.1997 to 4.6.1998. The vehicle was involved in a road accident on 8.1.1998. An intimation of the accident was sent by the wife of the complainant. The complainant sent an estimate for the repairs at Rs. 20,510/-. One Mr. Gopalakrishnan, Surveyor, attached to the opposite parties was sent to assess the damage and inspect the vehicle and submitted a report. He assessed the damages at Rs. 13,378-94 p. The 2nd Surveyor by name Mr. A. Shanmuga-sundaram was deputed to assess the repairs and he made a re-inspection on 6.7.1998 and confirmed the first Surveyor’s report. The opposite parties, after perusing the reports of the Surveyors, fixed the claim at Rs. 14,501/- and sent a voucher therefor. But the claimant did not accept the same. He has been insisting for payment of the entire sum of Rs. 21,016/-. It was explained to him that certain spare parts replaced would be assessed after depreciation and certain spare parts were exempt from payment of compensation under the terms and conditions of the policy. Though the 1st appellant was willing to settle the claim as early as possible, it was only the complainant who was dragging on the matter and refusing to accept the sum of Rs. 14,951/-. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. There was no need or occasion for the opposite parties to drag the complainant or harass him. The allegations made against the Surveyors are uncharitable. The complainant is not entitled to the entire amount. The complainant has not produced any document to show the business loss of Rs. 10,000/- and loss of income. The complainant is not entitled to Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony or Rs. 20,000/- towards deficiency of service.
3. The lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 21,016-97 p. with interest at 18% p.a. from 19.1.1998 and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 500/- towards cost. Hence this appeal.
4. The insurance policy provides for depreciation. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant in the month of June 1996 and was involved in the accident on 8.1.1998. Thus, the vehicle was more than one year old on the date of the accident. The Insurance Company sent a Surveyor to inspect the vehicle. The said Surveyor inspec
