Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he had purchased vehicle No.MH-02-XA-7155 on 31st August, 2005 for Rs.4,29,500/-. The vehicle was insured with the opponent for the period 8th December, 2010 to 7th December, 2011. The complainant paid premium of Rs.5,755/- to the opponent and policy was issued. On 30th July, 2011, the vehicle was damaged in the accident. The accident was informed to the opponent and submitted the claim. Details of expenditure were given to the opponent amounting to Rs.91,330/-. The complainant received letter dated 27th February, 2012 and 23rd March, 2012 from the opponent asking some compliance. The complainant send mail giving the details. Thereafter, the opponent sent another letter dated 29th March, 2012 alongwith discharge voucher for Rs.7,375/-. As the complainant incurred expenses of Rs.91,330/-, he has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs.91,330/- and legal fee Rs.4,000/-. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and cost of this proceedings Rs.10,000/-.
2) The opponent appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant failed to comply the requirement submitted by the opponent. The vehicle was insured for sum of Rs.1,78,000/-. It is denied that accident occurred on 30th July, 2011. The complainant has not disclosed the nature and the extent of damages in the accident. The claim form was submitted only after letters and reminders from the opponent dated 27th February, 2012 and 23rd March, 2012. The said claim form was submitted belatedly without date and without documents. The complainant was no co-operative and failed to give details of the cost incurred by him. Surveyor Shri Dhuri informed the opponent that he had carried out inspection on 19th August, 2011 but the complainant had not submitted the bills despite of several reminders on telephone. As per Surveyor Report, the claim was assessed to Rs.7,330/-. The complainant was trying to make improvements by replacing new parts under the guise of accidental damage. The accident damages to the extent of 7,375/- only was payable. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.
3) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record following points arise for our consideration
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
2) | Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ? | No |
3) | What Order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
4) As to Point No. 1 & 2 :- There is no dispute about the policy. According to the complainant accident took place on 30th July, 2011 and the vehicle suffered damages. According to the complainant, he incurred expenses of Rs.91,330/- for repairs. The opponent has denied the accident and damage to the vehicle. The complainant has not produced any evidence on record to show that vehicle was damaged in the accident. The complainant has not produced copies of police investigation papers to show the accident and the vehicle was damaged in the accident. According to the complainant, he incurred expenses of Rs.91,330/-. The complainant has produced xerox copies of bills. Those are challenged by the opponents. According to the opponents the complainant wants to replace the part under guise of damage in accident. It was necessary for the complainant to file the affidavit of the person who repaired the vehicle to show that the vehicle was damaged in the accident and the expenses were incurred for repairs of the damaged part in the accident. Mere production of xerox copies of bills is not sufficient to prove the damage in the accident. As per policy, the complainant is entitled for the expense incurred for repair of the part damaged in the accident. The opponent has already wrote letters/emails to the complainant asking for the details.The complainant has produced copy of notice issued through advocate. On perusal of it, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.91,330/-. The complainant has not sent the copies of bills to the opponent showing the details of expenses alongwith the notice. Those copies are produced in the complaint. The Surveyor was appointed by the opponent. The Surveyor informed the opponent about the non cooperation by the complainant. As per the Survey Report, damages are only for Rs.7,330/-. Accordingly, the opponent offered the amount of Rs.7,330/- to the complainant.
5) The learned advocate for the complainant in his written notes of argument has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Those judgments are on the point of payment of claim. In the instant complaint before us, the complainant failed to prove the damage to the vehicle therefore the abovecited judgments are not applicable to this complaint. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the opponent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 777. In view of this judgment, the report of Surveyor is not the last word but there must be legitimate reason for departing from the report. In the instant complaint before us, the complainant has not produced evidence to show the damage caused to his vehicle. Therefore, the Surveyor’s report will have to be believed. The learned advocate for the opponent has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in III(2008) CPJ 93 (NC) in the case of Champalal Verma –Versus- Oriental Insurance Company Limited. In para 5 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has laid down as under
Para 5 : I am left in no doubt, that as per law, it is the report of the Surveyor which has to be given due weightage but since this case involves the quantum dispute, and as has been consistently held by this Commission, Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of quantum dispute as it will involve a detailed investigation, which cannot be dealt in the summary proceedings expected from the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6) In the instant complaint before us also, there is no sufficient evidence produced by the complainant to show accidental damage and the expenses incurred by him for the repairs of accidental damage. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint stands dismissed
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 2nd April, 2014
