Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/89/2017

O Shankar S/o Obayya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Reliance General Insurance C Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.H.Srinivasa

14 Mar 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:07/09/2017

DISPOSED      ON:14/03/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

 

CC.NO: 89/2017

 

DATED:  14^th MARCH 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGDCLP  

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	O. Shankar S/o Obayya, Aged 40 Years, R.C. Owner of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17 A-9819, R/o Haliyuru Village, Chitradurga Taluk.   (Rep by Sri.H. Sreenivasa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Maganuru Commercial Complex, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.K.E. Mallikarjuna, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. N. THIPPESWAMY  :  MEMBER

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,12,898/- towards repair charges, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of accident, and such others reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the RC owner of car bearing Reg. No. KA-17 A-9819, which was purchased on 25.06.2007 from Toyota, it is a brand new car and the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.1405542311007374 for the period from 25.09.2014 to 24.09.2015 covering all risk and also covering own damage of the vehicle.  It is further submitted that, on 21.09.2015, the complainant and his driver by name Syed Kuddus are travelling in the said car to Bangalore from Chitradurga.  The said car moving near opposite Sir way bridge, Lingapur NH-4 road, Tumkur at about 11-30 AM one KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-17 E-1688 driven by its driver by rash and negligent manner and dashed to the above said car.  Due to the said accident, the car was entirely damaged.  After the accident, the complainant has intimated to the OP about the same.  The case was registered before the Traffic Police Station, Tumkur in Crime No.0175/2015 dated 21.09.2015 against the KSRTC Bus.  After giving intimation to the OP, the OP has intimated the complainant to give a complaint in writing, the complainant has given a written complaint.  Further the OP has appointed one surveyor and who visited the place of accident and conducted survey.  The complainant has left his car with authorized service center i.e., Toyota Ravindu Motors Pvt. Ltd., Tumkur for repair.  The said service center has given estimation for Rs.1,57,360/- and the same has been intimated to the OP.  After giving estimation, the total repair charges was Rs.1,12,898/-.  The complainant has submitted all the documents to the OP, for settlement of the claim.  After that, the complainant has visited the office of the OP so many times for settlement of the claim but, OP never settled the claim.  Finally, the OP has settled the claim only for Rs.50,739/- ( repair cost of Rs.1,12,898/- ) without any valid reason.  The complainant also suffered from mental agony and loss which cannot be measured in terms of money but same has to be adequately compensated in terms of money.  Hence, the attitude of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.  The cause of action for this complaint has arose on 21.09.2015, the date of accident and also on subsequent date on 07.11.2015, the date on which, the OP has settled the claim of the complainant in part which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After issuance of notice to the OP, OP appeared through Sri. K.E. Mallikarjuna, Advocate and filed version.  According to the version filed by the OP, the OP has admits that, the complainant is the RC owner of the car bearing Regn. No.KA-17 A-9819 and also further admits that, the vehicle was purchased on 25.06.2007 from Toyota.  It is further admits that, the vehicle insured with the OP under policy No.1405542311007374 and the said policy was in force from 25.09.2014 to 24.09.2015.  The allegations made in para 3 to 7 are all false.  The complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is true that, the OP has settled the claim for Rs.50,739/- and it is also true that, after instruction of the OP, the complainant has left his car in an authorized service center Toyota Ravindu Motors Pvt. Ltd., Tumkur for repairs.  It is also true that, the said service center has given estimation for Rs.1,57,360/- and the same has been intimated to the OP.  It is also true that, the total repair charges of the said vehicle was Rs.1,12,898/-.  It is submitted by the OP that, after receipt of the information, OP deputed surveyor to assess the loss and to report the same to OP.  The OP has taken final survey report and as per the report the lowest liability under the subject policy of insurance loss assessed after depreciation is a sum of Rs.50,739/-.  It is further submitted that, the complainant purchased the vehicle on 25.06.2007, as on the date of accident, the vehicle was 8 years old.  Quite naturally, the value of the vehicle and it’s IDV comes down drastically and hence, the complainant is not entitled for full repair charges and the liability if any, the OP is liable to pay compensation then, the quantum of amount is not strictly as per the claim as made by the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the amount paid to the complainant for Rs.50,739/- is after depreciation and deducted salvage as per IMT as aforesaid and it is towards full and final settlement and after receipt of the said amount, once again, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  It is further submitted that as per IMV only four minor damages caused to the vehicle i.e., 1. Right side rear view mirror broken, 2. Front right side door scratched 3. Right side scratched 4. Right side bumper scrateched.  However, estimate and bills reveals that, the complainant on the guise of accident get repaired his vehicle and replaced the entire parts which was not damaged in the accident.  It is further submitted that, with respect to any claim damage, the liability of the company is only as per final survey report.  Behind that, the company is not liable to pay any compensation, whereas in this case, the survey report is total unbiased.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-11 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OP, one Sri. H.B. Guruprasad, the Area Manager, has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-3 documents have been got marked and closed their side.  

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service for not settling the claim of the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of car bearing Reg. No. KA-17 A-9819, the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.1405542311007374 for the period from 25.09.2014 to 24.09.2015 which covers all risk and also covering own damage of the vehicle.   On 21.09.2015, the said car met with an accident near  opposite Sir way bridge, Lingapur NH-4 road, Tumkur at about 11-30 AM one KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-17 E-1688 driven by its driver by rash and negligent manner and dashed to the above said car and the car was entirely damaged.  After the accident, the complainant has intimated the OP about the same.  After the requisition received by the OPs, they appointed one surveyor and who visited the place of accident and conducted survey and assessed the loss caused to the car.  Thereafter, the complainant has left his car with authorized service center i.e., Toyota Ravindu Motors Pvt. Ltd., Tumkur for repair, the total repair charges was Rs.1,12,898/-.  The complainant has furnished all the documents to the OP for settlement of the claim.  After receiving all the documents from the complainant and the final survey report, the surveyor has send the amount for Rs.50,739/- to the complainant.  The OPs have stated in their version that, they have deducted depreciation and salvage of the vehicle and settled for an amount of Rs.50,739/-.  But, the complainant argued that, the OP has deducted the depreciation and salvage at the time of obtaining the policy.  The OP has already fixed the IDV value to the vehicle.  Once, the IDV fixed by deducting the salvage, the question of deducting depreciation again does not arise.  But the OP Advocate argued that, after depreciation and salvage, they have send Rs.50,739/- to the complainant, the complainant has received the above said amount and put his signature as full and final settlement as per Ex.B-2.  But, in Ex.B-2, the OP has send the payment directly to Toyota Ravindu Motors Pvt. Ltd., Tumkur on 22.01.2015.  The OP has argued that, once the complainant has put his signature on the document by accepting the amount send by the OP as full and final settlement, the question of claiming compensation again does not arise.  Hence, this complainant is not maintainable.  But, the Advocate for complainant argued that, once the depreciation has been deducted, the question of taking deprecation to the parts does not arise. 

9.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and the OP.  As per Ex.B-2, the complainant has received an amount of Rs.50,739/-, the same has been send by the OP to the Toyota Ravindu Motors Pvt. Ltd., by that time, the complainant has put his signature.  But, the complainant has not accepted the said amount as full and final settlement.  The cost of repair charges to the vehicle was Rs.1,12,898/- but, the OP has send only Rs.50,739/-, which cannot be accepted under law.  Here in this case, the OP has committed deficiency in service for settling the entire repair charges to the complainant.  Hence, Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

            The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

            It is ordered that the OP is hereby directed to pay remaining sum of Rs.62,159/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

            It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

            It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of President after the correction of the draft on 14/03/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. H.B. Guruprasad, the Area Manager, of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	Complaint given by Syed Kuddus
03	Ex-A-3:-	Mahazar
04	Ex-A-4:-	IMV report
05	Ex-A-5:-	Charge Sheet
06	Ex.B-6:-	Certification of Registration
07	Ex.B-7:-	Policy copy
08	Ex.B-8:-	Estimate copy
09	Ex.B-9:-	Bill dated 14.11.2015
10	Ex.B-10:-	Claim settlement copy
11	Ex.B-11:-	Receipt

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Policy copy
02	Ex-B-2:-	Payment receipt
03	Ex-B-3:-	Interim report

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**