Date of Filing: 26/10/2011

        Date of Order: 31/12/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  31^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

C.C. NO.1961 OF 2011

Veerendra.C.Patil,

R/at: No.1205, 18^th ‘A’ Main Road,

5^th Block, Near Bank of Maharashtra,

Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.

(Rep. by Sri.Basavaraj.R.Bannur, Advocate)                         ….  Complainant.

V/s

1) The Authorized Signatory,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company Limited, No.1370,

Vaishnavi Plaza, 3^rd Floor,

South End Main Road, Jayanagar,

BANGALORE.

2) The Authorized Signatory,

ICICI Lombard Insurance Company

Limited, ICICI Lombard House No.414,

Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak

Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025.

(Rep. by Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, Advocate)                    …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,85,048/-, are necessary:-

The complainant has insured his Maruthi Alto K10 VXI car with the opposite party and the insurance was valid between 01.06.2011 to 31.05.2012 which is a brand new car.  On 11.07.2011 at National Highway -4 near Davanagere it met with an accident and it was telephoned to the opposite parties and as per their instruction the complainant took the vehicle to the Hegde Auto Centre, Maruthi authorized service station, Poona Bangalore Road, Davanagere, and they have given their estimation.  The authorized surveyor of the opposite parties visited the service station and inspected the vehicle, assessed damage, took 40 photographs of the vehicle.  The service station gave the estimation for Rs.68,716/-, taking necessary approval of the surveyor the repair was done and the vehicle bill for Rs.62,250/- was prepared by the repairer which was paid by the complainant and took the vehicle.  The complainant made the claim but the opposite parties has paid only Rs.27,203/- instead of Rs.62,250/-.  Hence the complainant has issued notice even then the opposite parties has not paid.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

          The ownership of the vehicle, its insurance, its accident, damage, estimation claim, its repair and payment of Rs.27,203/- are all admitted.  The surveyor has discussed with all and given the report which is in accordance with law.  There is no reason to disagree with the report of the surveyor.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, the parties have filed their affidavits.  The arguments were heard. 

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the brand new vehicle bearing No.KA-02 MF-5078 a Maruthi ALTO K10 VXI car, purchased by him on 01.06.2011 and it was insured with the opposite party and the insurance was valid between 01.06.2011 to 31.05.2012.  It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle had sustained damages and as per the instructions of the opposite parties the complainant took the vehicle to the authorized service station and their authorized service personnel gave an estimation of Rs.68,716/-, the surveyor of the opposite party on direction from the opposite parties visited the garage saw the vehicle and he has given his report to the opposite party.  Ultimately the authorized service provider billed at Rs.62,251/- and the complainant submitted the entire bills, estimation and other records to the opposite party.  It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of the surveyor’s report only the complainant was paid Rs.27,203/- by the opposite party and not the amount he paid to the repairer.  This is questioned in this forum.

7.       Now we have to see whether the report of the surveyor is justifiable one.  The surveyor in his report regarding labour charges at serial Nos 6 to 10 has stated thus:-

The surveyor regarding the spares at serial Nos. 2, 5 19 has stated thus:-

And further stated at the bottom thus:-

“Total Disallowed Parts –

The Following Parts Are Disallowed Due To Undamaged/ Repairable

As per Estimation,”

That means the surveyor has assessed lesser labour charges; regarding windshield glass removing and refitting, Denting charges (Front panels C/R/W,  RH Lamp supporter denting), Painting (For Bumper, Hood, RH fender, Lamp supporter, and Hood members); AC Gas renewal why?  There is no answer.  Further the surveyor has not given any assess regarding spare of the radiator Grille, Front Hood panel assy which was fitted to the vehicle.  That means the surveyor has not assessed the damages properly.

8.       It was contended during the course of the arguments by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that in the report itself the surveyor has stated thus:-

“Total Disallowed Parts –

The Following Parts Are Disallowed Due To Undamaged/ Repairable

As per Estimation,”

hence the parts which has not been assessed has been disallowed.  This logic is an untenable one.  The surveyor has stated the following parts are disallowed due to undamaged reparable as per the estimation.  He does not say what are the parts which were not damaged and what are the parts which are repairable.  Those lists are not fourth coming nor stated hence this logic is not acceptable to reason.  That means the surveyor only to support his boss that is the opposite party has assessed very less.

9.       The repairer to please the complainant has given higher bill naturally. Hence if we take the average of these two that is Rs.62,251/- and Rs.27,386/- that will be the proper value of the repair charges; that is Rs.44,818/-, This we think that will meet the ends of justice.  Out of which the opposite parties had paid Rs.27,203/-,  hence the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.17,432/-.  If we order the opposite parties to pay this amount with interest we think that will meet the ends of justice.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.       The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.       The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.17,432/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 03.09.2011 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.

3.       The opposite parties are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.

4.       The opposite parties are directed to comply with the order as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

 5.      Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31^st  Day of December 2011)

MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT