State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs A. Senthil , No.3/10-C, S. Pudupalayam ... on 10 September, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice R. REGUPATHI PRESIDENT Thiru J. JAYARAM MEMBER
(JUDICIAL) Thiru S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II F.A.NO.749/2010 (Against order in C.C.NO.11/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Namakkal) DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Branch Office, 3rd Floor, Thulasi Chambers No.195, T.V. Sami Road R.S.Puram East, Coimbatore
2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Customer Service Centre M/s. M.B. Gopalan KSCMF Building, 3rd Floor Counsel for Cunningham Road, Bangalore Appellants / 3 & 4 Opposite parties Vs.
1. A. Senthil S/o. Appusami No.3/10-C, S. Pudupalayam Mr. P. Thangavel Serukkalai Post, Paramathy Counsel for Vellore Taluk, Namakkal District Respondents/ Complainant
2. S.M. Venkatachalam, Agent No.147, N, Kumar Complex Anna Salai, Thiruchengode- 637 211
3. Yalian Insurance Services Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Dr. Kasturi Ranga Road (Given up) Alwarpet, Chennai Respondents 2 & 3/ 1 & 2 Opposite parties The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.4.3.2010 in CC. No.11/2008.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:
JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties before the District Forum, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, filed this appeal as appellants.
2. The complainant insured his vehicle with the opposite parties. On 29.12.2005, the vehicle was met with an accident, and sustained heavy damage.
When claim was preferred with the opposite parties, it was repudiated. Thus alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, a consumer complaint came to be filed by the complainant, claiming refund of the amount spent, alongwith compensation and cost, which was opposed by the opposite parties.
3. The District Forum, after evaluating the materials on record, fixing deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 3 and 4, passed an order directing the opposite parties 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs.260000/-, towards the amount spent for repair, alongwith 7% interest and compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-, which is impugned before us by the opposite parties 3 and 4.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, confined his submission with regard to the quantum of award, by referring to Ex.A3 viz. the policy, stating that as per the policy, the maximum amount of coverage is only for Rs.180000/-, but the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.260000/-, which is excess award, and beyond the terms and conditions of the policy, further submitted that the rate of interest awarded is also unreasonable.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent/ complainant fairly conceded that as per the policy, the maximum award could be only Rs.180000/-, to that extent the appeal may be modified.
Further stated that the interest and compensation awarded is genuine, and the same can be confirmed.
6. We have perused the materials on record, and the order impugned. We are of the considered opinion that the amount awarded towards policy amount is over and above the terms of the policy conditions, hence it may be restricted to Rs.1,80,000/-. As far as the awarding of interest and compensation is concerned, as the interest is awarded, it may not be proper to award compensation also, hence the award of compensation may be set aside. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, suitably modifying the order.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum in CC.No.11/2008, dt.4.3.2010, and the 3rd and 4th opposite parties are directed to refund a sum of Rs.180000/- towards the policy amount instead of Rs.260000/- alongwith interest as ordered, setting aside the award of compensation, confirming the cost.
S.SAMBANDAM J. JAYARAM R. REGUPATHI MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/RRJ/FB/ Open court