YANDAMURI MURALI KRISHNA VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in CC 334/2006 on the file of the District Forum II, Visakhapatnam, the complainant preferred appeal in FA 1568/2007 and the opposite party preferred FA 271/2009. Since both appeals arose out of same complaint, they are being disposed of by this Common order.

(2.) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Mahindra Scorpio Turbo 9 seater vehicle and insured it with the opposite party on 07.02.2006 for an amount of Rs.4,93,894/- covering the period from 07.02.2006 to 06.02.2007. On 16.02.2006 the vehicle met with an accident and complaint was registered vide Cr. No.21/2006 and the accident was also informed to the opposite party and the vehicle was entrusted to the authorized repairer of Mahindra, i.e., Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. The complainant submits that the repairer raised bill for Rs.8,65,935/- including labour charges and the opposite party delayed settlement of the claim on the ground that its surveyor should assess the loss. Thereafter he got issued legal notice dated 1.5.2006 for which the opposite party replied directing him to approach the surveyor by way of letter dated 16.05.2006. The complainant submits that the repairer was pressurizing him to give instructions either to attend repairs or to pay demurrages for keeping the vehicle in their premises. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.4,93,894/- with interest and damages of Rs.1,20,000/- for deficiency in service and compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and costs.

(3.) The opposite party filed counter admitting that the vehicle was insured with them from 07.02.2006 to 06.02.2007 for an amount of Rs.4,93,874/-. They also admit that they received information from the complainant that the vehicle met with an accident on 16.02.2006. A surveyor Mr. A. A. Khan was deputed for assessment of the loss and the surveyor advised the insured and the repairer to go ahead with repairs vide registered letter dated 22.03.2006. The opposite party submits that the surveyor informed the insured vide letter dated 27.03.2006 that the claim cannot be considered on total loss basis, since the net liability on repair basis is not exceeding 75% of IDV, i.e., Rs.4.90 lakhs and therefore advised the insured to get clearance to repairer to commence repairs. The opposite party has also addressed a letter dated 05.04.2006 to the insured to cooperate with the surveyor for assessing the loss by arranging for dismantling the vehicle. Instead of cooperating with the surveyor, the complainant got issued a legal notice, for which, the opposite party replied on 16.05.2006 requesting him to go ahead with the repairs under intimation to the surveyor. The complainant did not send bills of repairs. The opposite party also contend that they did not repudiate the claim of the complainant and only requested the complainant to submit the bills and state that they cannot pay Rs.8,65,935/- which is the estimated quotation submitted by the complainant and hence the claim was under process during which time the complainant got issued a legal notice. Therefore, the complaint is premature and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.