Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1611/2016

United India Insurance Co., Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Achut - Opp.Party(s)

B.C. Seetharama Rao

17 Nov 2023

ORDER

                                                                     Date of Filing :11.07.2016

                                                                 Date of Disposal :17.11.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:17.11.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER

 

 

 

APPEAL No.1611/2016

 

United India Insurance Company

Branch Office : Main Road

Near : Dr B R Ambedkar Circle

Bidar - 585 401

Through its Divisional Office at Gulbarga

Rep. by its Divisional Manager                                                     Appellant

(By Mr B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate)

 

• Versus -

Sri Achut,

Major in Age

S/o Sri Prakash Biradar

Occupation : Self Employment

Resident of Holsamudra

Aurad Taluk (B),

Bidar District

(By Mr Mohan Malge, Advocate)                                           Respondent 

                                                 

   : ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 26.05.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.39/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bidar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on record. 

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part, and directing the OPs 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,860/- minus a depreciation @ 25% Rs.58,140/- =  Rs 1,06,720/-  together with interest on the amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation.  Further directed the OPs would be liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  Aggrieved by this Order, OP1 is in Appeal.

4.       According to OP1/Appellant herein, he had admitted the factum of accident and that he had paid an amount of Rs.67,700/- towards damages to the vehicle as per his Surveyor’s Report. While assessing the damages, the surveyor had deducted 25% towards depreciation of metal parts and 50% on the fibre/glass parts, which is as per the Terms of the Contract.  The Respondent/Complainant having received the Claim amount and discharging the Voucher, subsequently, filed this Complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.   Further contended that, the District Forum committed grave error of Law and facts involved, in finding fault with the Report of the Surveyor marked at Ex-R1, solely on the ground that there was error in mentioning the name of the Manufacturer of the damaged vehicle as Eicher Motors Limited instead of Tata Motors.  On this minor typographical mistake of brand name of the vehicle, the District Forum perversely observed that the Survey Report is prepared sitting in the Office in a routine manner.    The District Forum erred in not noticing that the claim is settled on the basis of the report of the statutory surveyor and the respondent has received the same by discharging full and final settlement voucher.  Thus Appellant seeks to set aside the impugned order by dismissing the complaint.

5.       Perused the Impugned Order and grounds of Appeal. It appears that the Complainant had purchased a 2007 Model Tata 909 Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-38/4435 under self employment scheme and hypothecated with Tata Motors Financial Service Ltd., Gulbarga, obtained the insurance policy with OPs vide policy bearing No.070500/31-10/2001-00000/87(Comprehensive) for the period between 30.04.2010 to 29.04.2011 and the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle being Rs.5,00,000/-. It is noted that, on 12.10.2010, the Vehicle unfortunately met with an accident in which the cabin and front portion of the vehicle was completely damaged and alleged to have incurred a sum of  Rs.2,32,560/- towards repair of the vehicle.  After receipt of claim from complainant, OP1 settled his claim as per Surveyor Report at Rs.67,700/-. 

6.       Further perusal of the records reveals that the District Forum in its Impugned Order recorded that, Ex-R1 is the Surveyor Report wherein surveyor mentioned EICHER MOTORS Ltd., of 2007 Model.  Whereas,  in all the documents especially Ex-P19, the RC Book and Ex-P14, the IMV report described as Manufacturer of the damaged vehicle as TATA MOTORS.   Further recorded in the quotation of Manickbag Automobiles spare parts and components were replaced extensively and their prices were quoted vividly, exclusive of the tax levied. How then, the surveyor, oblivious of the market economy/prices of the components use to 1/3^rd of the original price quoted almost?  District Forum by not accepting the surveyor report, come to conclusion to deduct 25% on the final bill of Rs.2,32,560/- of M/s.Manickbag Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Belgaum  directed the OPs to pay Rs.1,06,720/-  together with interest, compensation and costs reads as stated supra.

7.       On perusal of the Policy document and Survey Report, produced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it is observed that it is the case of the OPs that, an error had crept in their Surveyor’s report, mentioned the date of the accident as 13.12.2010 instead of 12.10.2010 and make/model as Eicher Motors Ltd., 2007 instead of Tata Motors and the same was not rectified and no documents were filed, bringing on record the fact about the rectification of the error to the Policy holder.  Further in his Report, the Surveyor has assessed net loss at Rs.69,941/- by giving depreciation 25% on metal parts and 50% on the fibre/glass parts, which the Appellant contends that, assessment of the surveyor is proper as per Terms of the Contract.

8.       To sum up, the accident that occurred on 12.10.2010 to the Tata 909 Goods vehicle bearing Regn. No.KA-38/4435, the Cabin and front portion of the vehicle was completely damaged and M/s.Manickbag Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Belgaum has raised his Bill for Rs.2,62,368/- for repair of the vehicle and the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,32,560/-. The Surveyor had assessed the damages at Rs.2,32,560/- by giving 25% depreciation on metal parts and 50% on the fibre/glass parts and assessed and the net loss has been concluded at Rs.69,941/-.  Whereas, the District Forum had arrived at its conclusion, by  providing a depreciation at 25% on the estimated value of Rs.2,32,560/- of M/s.Manickbag Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., works out to Rs.1,74,420/-. 

9.       This Commission is of the considered opinion that the concept of providing depreciation on the individual components and the OPs taking advantage of their own mistakes is in no way can be accepted in a business. When component get converted as a finished product, the depreciation should be on the finished product and not the individual component.  Further, the averment that this is as per the Terms of Policy document also cannot sustain and we would like to direct the Insurer to have a re-look in this matter, so that the Consumers are not exposing to un-due exploitation. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the vehicle is 2007 model and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,00,000/- as on date of accident, when the District Forum arriving at 25% depreciation on estimated value at Rs.1,74,420/- which in our considered opinion is slightly on the lower side and enhancing the same at Rs.1,84,420/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal is disposed of and OPs are jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs.1,16,720/- (Rs.1,84,420/- minus Rs.67,700/- already paid by OPs = 1,16,720/- ) as repair charges to the complainant.  Order of the District Forum with regard to interest, compensation and litigation cost remain undisturbed.   Further OPs are directed to comply with the order within 60 days from the date of the order.

10.     The statutory deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

 

11.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

                            

Lady Member                      Judicial Member                     President

*s