THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
APPEAL NO.468/2016
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Sri.G.Prathappa,
S/o Govindaiah,
Aged about years, ...Appellant/s
Working at Opp: TCI,
11th Main, Madavara post,
Bengaluru North Taluk
(By Sri.M.Ravikumar, Advocate)
-Versus-
1. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI
Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Mubai-51, India, … Respondent/s
Represented by its Manager,
2. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd, Having its
Branch office at No.39, 2nd
Floor, CMH Road,
Indiranagar, Opp: to BATA
Show Room, Benaluru-38
Represented by its Manager
(R1&2-By Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The complainant in complaint No.1547/2011 preferred this appeal against the dismissal order passed by the 4th Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru which dismissed the claim of the complainant, for which the complainant sought for claim of own damage by virtue of the policy.
2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant is the owner of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-Z-5423 and insured with the Opposite Parties Company vide policy bearing No.3001/63309806/00/000. Such being the case the vehicle met with an accident and suffered damages on 27-3-2011. Immediately the complainant intimated the said accident to the Opposite Parties and shifted the vehicle for repairs at RNS Motors. The Opposite Parties have not informed anything about the claim of the complainant under own damage claim in the meantime the complainant repaired the entire vehicle by paying an amount of Rs. 1,06,651/-. After paying the entire repair charges, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties and sought for reimbursement of the entire amount spent towards repair, but the Opposite Parties has not responded properly. Subsequently on 28-7-2011 the complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Parties and requested for settle the claim, but the Opposite Parties have not given any promise to settle the claim. Having no option the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission.
3. The District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. In fact the Opposite Parties by virtue of the policy have to pay the own damage claim to the complainant. Instead of that the District Commission without any valid reasons dismissed the complaint. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allow the complaint in the interest of justice and equity and direction be given to reimburse an amount of Rs.1,06,651/- which was paid towards repair amount.
4. Heard from both sides.
5. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal, it is not in dispute that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-Z-5423. It is also not dispute that, it was insured with the Opposite Parties Company vide policy bearing No.3001/ 63309806/00/000 which is valid from 27.2.2011 to 26.2.2012. It is an undisputed fact that, the vehicle met with an accident on 27-3-2011 and got intensive damage to the vehicle. The complainant by virtue of the policy had claimed for reimbursement of the repair charges to the tune of Rs.1,06,051/-, but the Opposite Parties have not settled the claim, aggrieved by the said the complainant approached the District Commission. The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite Parties. The District Commission in its findings had narrated that the Opposite Parties have called the complainant for production of the documents and production of the vehicle in order to settle the claim to the tune of 75% of the IDV value of the vehicle bearing No.KA-04-Z-5423 being Rs.84,975/-. Since the claim was treated as constructive total loss based on surveyor report. Accordingly the Opposite Parties/Respondent wrote a letter dated 9-5-2011 to bring and surrender the vehicle for total loss and obtain 75% of the IDV value, but the complainant for the reasons best to known to him not accepted the offer made by the Opposite Parties and insisted for payment of repair charges to the tune of Rs.1,06,051/-.
6. We are of the opinion that, when the Opposite Parties being an insurer had offered for settlement of the claim by way of constructive total loss basing on the surveyor report and offered for settle of the claim upto 75% of IDV value. The complainant cannot allege any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and not suppose to demand for payment of entire repair charges under the own damage claim. When the cost of the repair exists to the IDV value, the insurance company ought to pay the IDV value of the vehicle. Here we notice upon the suggestion made by the surveyor, this respondent company had offered for settlement of the claim by paying 75% of the IDV value, but the complainant had not accepted and subsequently alleged deficiency in service.
7. The complainant has not urged any valid reasons for not accepting the offer made by the Opposite Parties and also not shown any valid grounds alleging deficiency in service. The District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint holding that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. As such the appeal fails and accordingly the order passed by the District Commission is confirmed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the 4th Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.1547/2011 is confirmed.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
Jrk/-
