Per K.V.Krishna Murthy:   

            This is a claim for own damage of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA – 37/ A-660 JCB excavator belonging to the complainant.  The front wind screen glass was damaged and purchased as per the bill dated: 22-11-2012 vide Ex.A.6.  The total amount of the bill was Rs.9,570/- inclusive of VAT Rs.498.91.  The cost price was Rs.9,071.09.  The damage was intimated on 20-09-2012.  A claim number was given by Insurance Company as 3380009172.  Mr. G.B.Hemachandra was the surveyor appointed on 21-09-2012.  He gave a report on 27-02-2013, wherein he assessed the glass part allowed at cost of Rs.9,071/-.  For sealant, he allowed 50% of the list price of Rs.1,138/-.   For this amount he added labour charges including tax at Rs.1,800/-.  Out of gross amount of Rs.11,440/- the surveyor deducted Rs.8,790/- towards excess and compulsory excess.  Thus he calculated the liability of the insurer was at Rs.2,650/-.  Even this amount has not been paid by the Insurance Company and contesting the claim since last 7 months.

            2.  The defence set-up in the written version are as follows;

“xxxx, in this case after the accident the complainant has lodged the claim and the claim number is 3380009172 and the date of accident is 20-09-2012.  After the lodging the claim the respondent insurance company has repeatedly sent request letters on dated 19-11-2012, 18-01-2013 and 19-02-2013 to the complainant requesting him to produce the material documents i.e. Claim Form, Registration Certificate, Driving license, Route Permit, Fitness Certifcate, Claim Discharge Voucher, Satisfaction cum discharge Voucher, Bills of repairs.  In spite of these letters, the complainant did not submit the same to the respondent company.  It is the bounden duty of the insured to produce the material documents requested by the company for verification.  But, the complainant did not do so.  Hence, there is a fatal mistake on the part of the complainant himself in not submitting the documents.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company i.e. respondents.  The complainant himself has made mistake and falsely filed this complaint, which is deserves to be dismissed.”

            3.  In this complaint, the complainant has claims Rs.13,170/- towards the own damage.  The complainant has filed an affidavit evidence on
06-06-2014.  But he has not explained how he calculated the own damages at Rs.13,170/-.

            4.  Probably this amount of Rs.13,170/- has been arrived by totaling the bills Ex.A.6 and Ex.A7.  Ex.A6 pertains to purchase and Ex.A.7 is a labour bill.  The amount in Ex.A.6 is Rs.9,570/- whereas the labour charges at bill Ex.A.7 is Rs.3,600/-.  The purchase bill is dated: 22-11-2012 whereas the labour bill is dated 08-10-2012.  The date is over-written.  But over-written bill has to be ignoed because the OP counsel furnished the Xerox copy of the bill sent to the company, which clearly shows the bill is dated: 08-10-2012.  Therefore, Ex.A.7 has to be rejected.

            5.  The surveyor has allowed only Rs.9,071/- out of Rs.9,570/- dis-allowing the VAT charges.  But the purchaser has to pay the VAT charges also.  Therefore the VAT charges has to be included in the purchase price.  Therefore we allow Rs.9,570/- towards the purchase of the front wind screen glass. The Surveyor has also allowed sealant replacement of worth Rs.1138/- and after depreciation Rs.569/- has been allowed.  The surveyor has allowed Rs.1,800/- towards the labour charges, which is quite reasonable and is allowed.  However, the policy document at Ex.A.1 permits compulsory deduction of Rs.8,790/-.  Therefore, the liability of the insurer is Rs.3,149/-.

            6.  The letter, Ex.A.2 dated: 21-01-2013 discloses that the following documents furnished as sought by the company from the compainant.

1.    ವಾಹನ ನೋಂದಣಿ ಪತ್ರ.
2.    ವಾಹನ ಚಾಲನೆ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ
3.    ರೂಟ್ ಪರ್ಮಿಟ್,
4.    ಫಿಟ್ನೆಸ್ ಸರ್ಟಿಫಿಕೇಟ್,
5.    ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ಬಿಲ್ಲ (ಮೂಲ ಪ್ರತಿ)
6.    ಫಿಟ್ಟಿಂಗ್ ಚಾರ್ಜಬಿಲ್ಲ (ಮೂಲ ಪ್ರತಿ) ಇನ್ನುಳಿದ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳು ನಿಮಗೆ ಮುಂಚಿತವಾಗಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.
7.    ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ತೆಗೆದ ನಂತರ ಗ್ಲಾಸ್ ತೆಗೆದ ಫೋಟೋ.

             Therefore, we are not ready to accept the contention of the company that the complainant has not furnished the documents sought.  We also notice that the company failed to answer the interrogatories furnished during the course of proceedings.

8. The insurance company has unnecessarily contested the case for such a small amount although the complainant has paid premium of Rs.16,800/- for the relevant period.  Therefore, we grant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service for the avoidable harassment.  A further sum of Rs.3,000/- is allowed towards litigation expenses including cost of notices issued prior to filing of the complaint.

9. In the result, the insurance company is directed to make payment of Rs.8,149/- (Rupees eight thousand one hundred and forty-nine only) with interest at 10% p.a. there-on from the date of complaint till actual payment.  In addition, the respondent has to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings.  The payment should be reported to this Forum within three months.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Complaint Partly Allowed.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.