BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

C.C.No.234 / 2013

Complainant

Opposite Parties

Shameer
: 1.Managing Director
HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Co.LTD,
2.Branch Manager
HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Co.LTD, Kollam

ARGUMENT NOTE MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED BY Ist & 2nd

OPPOSITE PARTIES
Complainants case in brief is that the complainant is having
valid full cover insurance for his vehicle KL-02 AG 6334 Tipper
Lorry

from

the

respondent

as

per

Policy

No.2315200229968700000. The vehicle met with an accident on

03.09.2012 immediately after the accident the complainant
lodged a claim as No. C-230012072040 and submitted estimate
for Rs. Seven Lakhs before the opposite party for the repairing
works of the vehicle. As per the advise of the opposite parties, the

complainant had purchased all the spare parts from different

shops and the repairing works were done by the authorised
workshope and thereby the complainant had spent a total sum of
Rs. 599466/- and the bills pertaining to the spares and repair
were submitted to the opposite partys office in time. But they
have allowed only a sum of Rs.201077/- instead of Rs. 599466/-.
But the complainant is not satisfied with the amount paid by the
opposite party and hence the complaint. The 1 st & 2nd opposite
parties filed version as follows: The complaint is not maintainable
either on facts or on law.

The opposite parties do not admit

and denies all the allegations made in the complaint and the
complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations except
those that are specifically admitted.
It is submitted that on 16/11/2012, the company has

4.

received claim intimation by alleging that the complainant vehicle

was met with an accident on 09/11/2012. Immediately on the
receipt of claim intimation the company has appointed Mr. Jos K.
Thomas,

Independent Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor,

License No.SLA 36044/92 duely licensed by Insurance Regulatory

Development authority to assess the alleged loss. The surveyor has
submitted his report after thorough and detailed assessment. As
per his report the loss sustained to the petitioner vehicle is Rs
201077 only after deducting the depreciation, policy excess and
salvage

value.

The

same

was

conveyed

to

the

petitioner.

Accordingly payment was made on 25/04/2013 and he received

the payment without any objection or protest.
5.

To prove the case from the petitioner, petitioner was examined

and Exts. A1 to 7 were marked. To prove the case from the opposite

patries Manager/Authorised signatory was examined and Exts.B1&

B2 were marked. Ext.B 1 is the survey report and Ext.B2 is the
policy conditions. It is submitted that the petitioner has not
produced any documents or bills to the opposite parties to
substantiate their claim. More over that they have not filed or
mentioned even a single document with the petition in support of
their claim. Even their chief affidavit is silent about the documents
to be marked. As per the Chief Affidavit filed by the petitioner
nothing is mentioned about the name of work shope were they have
repaired the vehicle and names of shopes from were they have
purchased the alleged spare parts. More over that there is not even
a wisper regarding the bills and documents with them. But at the
time of examination of witness petitioner produced and marked
photocopies of some records subject to the objection of the counsel
for the opposite party.
6.

According to Order VII Rule.14(3) of Civil Procedure Code A

document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff

when
the plaint is presented,or to be entered in the list to be added or
annexed to the plaint but not produced or entered accordingly,
shall
not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his
behalf at the hearing of the suit. Hence the documents produced
by
the petitioner at the time of examination of witness is not
admissible

in evidence.
7.

The Surveyor & Loss Assessor deposed before the Court that

he
had prepared the report after physically examining the vehicle and
ascertaining the newly replaced spare parts.

8. The amount claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant and without

any basis. The averment that the petitioner purchased all the spare
parts from different shops as per the advise of the opposite party is
false and hence denied. We never suggested any shops. More over
that the petitioner has not produced any bill with regards to the
spare parts purchased from any shops. The amount claimed is
calculated without deducting the depreciation of the spare parts.
9.

These being the facts the petitioner is not at all entitled to get

any amount from the opposite party. There is no deficiency in

service and unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite
parties and hence we are not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioner.
10...The opposite parties humbly submits that there is no cause of
action as against them as disclosed in the complaint.Since the
Opposite parties were unnecessarily dragged before the forum we
are entitled to get compensation from the petitioner.
In view of the above said facts, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Honble court may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint
as against the opposite parties with cost and thus render justice.

25.01.2016
SAIJU.J
ADVOCATE