BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 3rd January 2017
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.108/2013
(Admitted on 10.04.2013)
Mr. Jagadish R. Alva,
S/o Ramanna Alva,
Aged 42 years,
Residing at Kuvethal House,
Pajeer Village and Post, Bantwal Tq.
…..... COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri ADB)
VERSUS
1. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd.,
Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46 Whites Road,
Chennai 600014
Represented by its Divisional Manager,
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Branch Office at III Floor, Emky s Shalimar
Complex, Kankanady, Mangalore
Represented by its Branch Manager.
….......OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite parties No.1 & No.2: Sri UKS)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaints filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the same complainant against same opposite parties alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant contends he had insured his vehicle Mahindra Scorpio Reg No. KA.19.P.1805 on 18.5.2011 on 9.30 pm the vehicle met with an accident result in damage. On complainant’s report opposite party appointed surveyor loss assessor Mr. Praveen Chandra Shetty who assessed the net loss damage Rs.1,28,975/ the complainant has submitted necessary paper as claimed by opposite party No.2. But under the guise of verification of complainant claim opposite party denied making payment and ultimately failed to discharge their liability in mental agony to complainant hence seeks the relief claimed.
II. Opposite party admitted the insurance cover to the vehicle of the complainant. The surveyor appointed by the opposite party assess the loss at Rs. 1,28,975 despite repeated requests failed to submit original bill to evidence for the repair bill undertaken by the complainant. Complainant failed to produce the origin bills with ID proof; as such the claim is itself premature in view of the conditions of the policy. The allegation of failure of opposite party to discharge the claim of complainant is false. As the complainant failed to honour the condition precedent as it is contractual obligation seeks rejection of complaint.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. Jagadish R.Alva filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents marked Ex.C1 to C5 detailed in the annexure. Mr Praveen Chandra Shetty CW2 Surveyor also filed affidavit evidence. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Aneesh Bhaskaran (RW1) Senior Executive also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents marked Ex.R1 to R4 detailed in the annexure.
In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No.(iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): The complainant’s vehicle in question was insured with opposite party and the policy Ex.R1 covers the period of accident is not in dispute. However the opposite party the service provider has not settled the claim of the complainant on the pretext of not producing the receipts refused to make payment to complainant. As such there is dispute between the consumers the complainant and the opposite party the service provider is established. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No.(ii): Ex.C1 is the legal notice addressed to opposite party on behalf of complainant calling upon to make payment of the expence incurred. Ex.C4 is the policy copy. Ex.C5 is the report of the surveyor as per which the assessed the loss of Rs. 1,28,975/. The complainant produced the receipt issued by Supreme Automobiles, Mangalore for Rs.1,30,375/ with the tax invoice.
2. On the other hand apart from producing the copy of the insurance of the vehicle issued by opposite party to complainant produced copy of the insurance claim given by the complainant to opposite party and also the copy of the reminder Ex.R4 these 3 reminders is dated 18.5.2011 the invoice produce by complainant is dated 10.11.2011. As such it can safely be stated as on the date of these reminders on 11.5.2011 and the repair work is completed much later i.e. on 10.11.2011. The legal notice Ex.C1 is dated 16.1.2013 and the complaint is filed on 9.4.2011 is within 2 years from the date of the reminder and completion of the repair work i.e. date of the invoice and within 2 years from the dated of the accident 18.5.2011.
3. As seen from Ex.R1 the copy of insurance policy, section I (4) in respect of a vehicle 5 years to 10 years old depreciation to be allowed is 40%. In fact section I (X) 1 to 3 details as to what are the percentage of deduction admissible under the terms of policy. But for consideration of these, it is to be noted complainant before filing this complaint never provided the bills to the opposite party. Hence in our view there was no opportunity to opposite party to consider the claim of complainant. Hence we are left with no alternative but to reject the complainant’s claim as premature with the observation that in case opposite party repudiates complainants claim, it is open to complainant to approach this Forum afresh. Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is rejected as premature.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 5 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 3rd January 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Jagadish R.Alva
CW2 Mr Praveen Chandra Shetty, Surveyor
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.C2: 2 Postal receipts
Ex.C3: 2 Postal AD Cards
Ex.C4: Policy Copy
Ex.C5: Surveyor Report
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. Aneesh Bhaskaran, Senior Executive
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Certified True copy of the Policy No. VPC0257040000100 Issued to Scorpio No. KA 19 P 1805
Ex.R2: Xerox copy of the claim form dated 19.5.2011
Ex.R3: Xerox Copy of the Survey Report dated 30.9.2011
Ex.R4: Xerox Copy of the letters (3 in nos) issued by OP to Complainant
Dated: 03.01.2017 PRESIDENT
