Date of Filing:13.09.2007<br /> Date of Order:10.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1919 OF 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> Professional Globe<br /> Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> No.27, Manima Apartments,<br /> 12th Cross, Maruthi Layout,<br /> Dasarahalli, HF Farm Post,<br /> Hebbal, Kempapura,<br /> Bangalore-560 024.<br /> represented by present<br /> Managing Director,<br /> Sri. Revanna. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Bajaj Alliannz,<br /> 105 A/107A, Cears Plaza,<br /> 136, Residency Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 025. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant insured the vehicle bearing No.KA-02 ML-555 with the opposite party. The insurance policy was valid from 18/3/2007 to 17/3/2008. The said vehicle met with an accident near Kengeri, Mysore road. Complainant informed the opposite party about the accident and Sri. K.V. Pruthvish inspected the vehicle and gave report. The opposite party wrote a letter saying that the damage to vehicle is caused due to wear and tear which is excluded from policy. Complainant thereafter got the vehicle surveyed with Vijay Auto Sales and Services and got estimate for repairs. Complainant enclosed estimate for Rs.1,15,600/- and demanded the said amount from the opposite party. The complainant also prayed Rs.1,00,000/- as alternate conveyance charges and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version stating that, the complaint is not maintainable. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. Opposite party had issued motor policy insurance. Liability of the company under policy is subject to terms and conditions. Mr. K.V. Pruthvish is a registered surveyor examined the damages and assessed the loss at Rs.7,323/- towards spare parts. Surveyor noted that damage to chassis is not relevant to the nature of accident and the same is not considered for assessment of damages. Cracks on the chassis do not seem to have developed due to impact. Cracks to chassis were due to wear and tear. Company is not liable to make any damage in respect of consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear. The letter of which the complainant relying is false and created for the purpose of claim. Opposite party is not liable to pay damages. Hence, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Both the parties have filed documents. Arguments heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service <br /> on the part of the opposite party? <br /> 2. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay damages caused to the chassis of the vehicle? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. It is an admitted fact that, the vehicle bearing No.KA-02 ML-555 was insured with the opposite party. The policy is valid from 18/3/2007 to 17/3/2008. The said vehicle met with an accident on 26/7/2007. The matter is informed to opposite party. On getting information the opposite party deputed Sri. K.V. Pruthvish, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who is a licensed surveyor for inspection of the vehicle. The said surveyor inspected the vehicle on 30/7/2007 and submitted the report stating that cracks on the chassis do not seem to have developed due to fresh impact. There is no tyre wear in any of the tyres even on the LH front side where the impact has taken place. The surveyor submitted his report stating that the crack formation to the chassis was due to wear and tear. The surveyor assessed the loss to the vehicle and he has submitted Claim Cost Approval on 30/7/2007. As per this Claim Cost Approval he has assessed the loss at Rs.7,323/- and he has submitted that damage to the chassis is not relevant to the cause of accident and hence not considered for assessment. He has given 7 reasons to come to his opinion and ultimately he has submitted that, due to the reasons mentioned in the survey report, the crack formation was due to wear and tear. As per the policy condition the opposite party company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of the consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical break down failures or breaks. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. In view of the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant is not entitled to the amount spent for the replacement of the chassis. Mr. K.V. Pruthvish being a registered Surveyor and Loss Assessor and he has inspected the vehicle within few days of the accident, his report has to be accepted. The opposite party has also filed affidavit of surveyor in this case. The complainant mainly relying on a letter of Vijay Auto Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd., dated 4th September-2007. This letter only gives clarification of vehicle repair. In this letter it is stated that, they requested to replace the chassis as it is not repairable and it is dangerous to drive. Further in the letter it is stated “Chassis is not having manufacturing defect or crack is not due to wear and tear as per claim”. The letter produced by the complainant will not help him in any way. The person who had issued letter is a Service Manager of Vijay Auto Sales and Services. He is not a licensed Loss Assessor and Surveyor. Apart from that no affidavit of Service Manager has been filed by the complainant to prove the letter dated 4th September-2007. This letter only states that only on the request of the complainant the Service Manager had issued letter. The letter produced by the complainant dated 4th September-2007 cannot be relied upon and accepted at all to asses the damages. The survey report of the licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor shall have to be accepted because Mr. K.V. Pruthvish within few days of the accident inspected the vehicle personally and assessed the damages and submitted his detail report and he has given reasons for his opinion. He has submitted Claim Cost Approval and as per his assessment a sum of Rs.7,323/- is payable for the damages caused to the vehicle. Therefore, the opposite party shall be ordered to pay an amount of Rs.7,323/- as per the Claim Cost Approval submitted by the Loss Assessor and Surveyor. The claim put up by the complainant being not submitted by any legal and acceptable documents and the same cannot be allowed in law. The complainant has not submitted any expert opinion in this case for the assessment of damages. Except the self serving affidavit of the complainant, there is no any other legal and acceptable evidence before the Forum to asses the damages. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the damages claimed in the complaint. The opposite party shall be directed to pay Rs7,323/- to the complainant with interest from the date of complaint. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.7,323/- (as per the claim cost approval) to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay interest on the said amount at 10% p.a from the date of complaint till payment/realization. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 500/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2008.<br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />