CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. 78/2007
K Muhammed
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Br.Manager,United India Insueance
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is given below. The Complainant is a R.C Owner of the Motor Cycle No. KL 12/C 1875. The vehicle was insured by the Opposite Party with Policy No. 101601/31/05/02773, the period of insurance is in between 18.08.2005 and 17.08.2006. While the Complainant was driving the Motor Cycle from Vellimadukunnu to Kozhikode Civil Station, on 03.08.2006 it met with an accident. A Truck bearing No. KL 12/ 8811 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner hit at the vehicle and the motor cycle was damaged costing an expense around Rs. 30,000/-. (Contd........2) - 2 - The Motor Cycle was entrusted for repair in GEM TVS, West Nadakkavu, Kozhikode for repair. The Complainant spent Rs.22,685/- towards the repair charges and for the purchase of spare parts. All the bills pertaining to the expenses was handed over to the Opposite Party. Whereas the Opposite Party gave the Complainant only Rs.12,610/- towards the repair and for the purchase of the spare parts the Complainant received this amount under protest. The Opposite Party also insisted the Complainant to make an endorsement that it is the full and final settlement. The Complainant was any how compelled to write in such a way. In several occasion after this incident the Complainant went to the office of the Opposite Party in order to get the balance amount. The Opposite Party collected from the Complainant the bills of amount Rs.22,685/-. The Opposite Party may be directed to give the Complainant Rs.30,000/- along with interest at the rat of 18% towards the pain and sufferings. The Opposite Party is also entitled to give the Complainant Rs. 25,000/- towards cost. 2. The Opposite Party filed version. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Motor Cycle insured with the Opposite Party is admitted the make and year of Motor Cycle was TVS Star PK 2005. After the accident the claim of the party was settled mutually and the amount agreed by both of them is Rs.12,610/-. The Complainant also accept the amount of Rs.12,610/- in full satisfaction of the claim. The claim was calculated depreciating the salvage value and policy excess the complainant is not entitled to get the full amount without deducting depreciation policy exceeds and salvage value. The amount of claim allowed to the Complainant was on that basis. The allegations of the Complainant that acceptance of so called amount Rs. 12,610/- was upon threatening are false and that are alleged only for the purpose of the Complaint. There was no compulsion on the part of the Opposite Party to settle claim on the amount allowed. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. (Contd........ 3) - 3 - 3. The points in consideration are: 1.Is there any deficiency in service in dealing of the Opposite Party?. 2.Relief and cost. 4. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the cheque of Rs.12,610/- given to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. Ext.B1 is the certificate of insurance issued to the Complainant. Ext.B4 is the demand intimation voucher signed and given by the Complainant. The deposition of the Complainant that the amount received according to him is only as the initial payment cannot be considered. The pleading of the Complainant that Ext.B4 is procured by the Opposite Party upon threat is not brought out in evidence. It is to be presumed that the Complainant agreed and the claim was settled finally on excepting Rs.12,610/-. From the above inferences it is to be held that the Opposite Party has not done any deficiency in service. The Complainant is also not entitled to repudiate the terms agreed with the Opposite Party. In the result, the complaint is to be dismissed, no Order upon costs. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 18th day of April 2008.
