Date of filing : 12-10-2010
Date of order : 22-02-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 214/2010
Dated this, the 22nd day of February 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Irshad Ali Mohammad,
S/o. K.Aboobacker,
R/at H.No.10/154. Valliyode House, } Complainant
Melparanba, Kalanad.Po.
Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
(Adv. U.S. Balan, Kasaragod)
1. The Branch Manager, } Opposite parties
M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd,
107, Crystal Arcade, Near Roopa Hotel,
1st floor, Belmetta Road, Mangalore.575 001.
2. The Branch Manager,
M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd,
Enay Tourist Home, Opp. Viceroy Hotel,
M.G.Road, Kasaragod.
(Adv. S. Mammo, Taliparamba)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Shorn of unnecesaries the case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant is the RC Owner of the Maruti Zen Car bearing Reg.No.KL-14/F 7788. The vehicle is duly insured with opposite parties during the period 17-02-2010 to 16-02-2011 it met with an accident on 8-4-2010 and caused damages. Opposite party No.2 was duly intimated about the accident on the same day. Thereafter opposite party No.2 deputed a surveyor to assess the damages. Accordingly surveyor assessed the damages. The total loss assessed by the Car Care Maruti authorized service station after completing the service of the complainant’s vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14 F 7788 was `28,837/-. Though the completion of repair was duly intimated to both opposite parties they neither deputed the surveyor for final assessment nor paid the damages. Hence the complaint.
2. Though Notice to opposite parties served they remained absent on the first day posted for hearing. Hence both opposite parties were set exparte on 22-11-2010. Then on 3-12-2010 opposite parties filed IA275/10 to set aside the exparte order made in the proceedings. It is allowed and the case posted for version to 22-12-2010. On that day again opposite parties remained absent and therefore again opposite parties 1 & 2were set exparte. Again on 17-1-2011 opposite party filed IA 18/11 to set aside the exparte order in the proceeding. Since complainant did not object the IA and no counter filed it was allowed and opposite parties was directed to file version on 8-2-2011. On 8-2-2011 counsel for opposite parties again sought time for version. Hence the case posted for version of opposite parties to 16-2-2011. On that day also opposite parties did not care to file version. The complainant filed Affidavit on 31-1-2010 and Exts A1 to A7 marked. Counsel for the complainant heard, documents perused.
3. The character and conduct even in the matter of appearing before the Forum indicates the lethargic approach of opposite parties to a case filed against them. If that be so, we can assume the manner of their approach to a claim submitted by a customer.
4. Complainant in his affidavit reiterated what is stated in the complaint. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence let in by PW1. Exts A5, A6 & A7 shows that complainant incurred a sum of `28,837/- for repairing the vehicle. Therefore opposite parties are liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss sustained to him.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of `25,000/-(considering the policy deductions) to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment with a cost of `3,000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 7-6-2010 copy of lawyer notice.
A2& A3 . Postal acknowledgement cards.
A4. Motor Vehicle Cover Note.
A5& A6. Retail Cash Memo issued by Cars Care.
A7. 20-5-10 Receipt issued by Durga Car A/C & Refrigeration Engineering.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
