BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.551 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.12 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM GUNTUR

Between:

Betchina Bulli Joginath S/o Papa Rao
aged about 25 years, Occ:Business
R/o Dr.No.9-1-5/1, Main Road
Near Gandhi Statue, Samalkota
East Godavari District                                                                                          

1.  The Brnach manager
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
40-01-10, Labbipet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada-10

2.  Maruthi Suzuki India Limited,
rep. by its MD Regional office

101 & 102 Mahavir Chambers, 1^stStanza Building, Himayathnagar, Hyd.

Counsel for the Appellant                            

Counsel for the Respondent              

QUORUM:  

                            SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

 WEDNESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***

1.     

2.    The appellant insured his care      `300/- as fine on the driver who paid the amount on 15.10.2010.

3.    `3,75,000/-. The respondent requested the appellant to get the vehicle repaired and submit bills for reimbursement of the amount or in the alternative to hand over the car for settlement of claim for`65,000/-. M/s Jayalaxmi Automotives estimated the repair of the car at`3,21,814/-. The appellant got issued notice on 22.08.2011 to the respondent and filed the complaint.

4.    `1,04,081/-and the respondent requested the appellant informing him that the body shell of the vehicle is repairable and to get it repaired and produce bills thereof or if the appellant felt it difficult to get the vehicle repaired, to hand it over to the respondent along with authorisation letter for the purpose of repairing the vehicle and in the alternative the respondent offered the sum assessed by the surveyor,`1,00,000/- as settlement of claim on total loss basis. As there was no response from the appellant, the respondent closed the file on 29.03.2011.

5.      

6.     

7.     

8.    

9.    

10.     The appellant stated that on complaint lodged by his driver , the police visited the spot and the inspector of police stated to have visited the spot and issued certificate. Admittedly, no FIR was issued nor any panchanama was conducted by the police. The certificate issued by the inspector of police goes to show that the driver of the car informed him that due to dazzling lights of an

11.   

“1.       

2.        

3.        

12.    The appellant refers to the opinion dated 17.03.2011 

13.           

14.            

15.           

16.            

                                                                                                                                      కె.ఎం.కె.*