IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 347/09 DATED 01.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant K.R.Srinivasan, S/o Ramayyanagar, R/at No.47/D, Deveerammani Agrahara, K.R.Mohalla, Mysore-17.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. C.K.Poovanna, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The General Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., No.41, Cristee Complex, 2nd Floor, Lavelle Road, Bangalore-560001.<br /> 2. Branch Manager, IFFCO_TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., Opp. Dharwad Bakery, New Kanthraj Urs Road, Mysore.<br /> (By Smt.K.L.Sugandhi, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 11.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 01.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 01.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking damages of Rs.1,99,560/- in respect of the insured vehicle, which was involved in the accident.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant was R.C. owner of KA-09-M-9687, which was insured with opposite parties having policy No.36997314 dated 09.05.2007. The said vehicle met with an accident on 09.05.2007. The incident to reported was police. At the time of the accident, driver had valid driving license. Incident was informed to the opposite parties. The authorized surveyor attached to the opposite parties inspected the vehicle and conducted survey. The damages was estimated to Rs.1,99,560/-. The complainant furnished all relevant documents to opposite parties. The opposite party did not settle the claim. Hence, it is alleged that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the complaint,.<br /> <br /> 3. Though, opposite parties appeared before the Forum through advocate, no version is filed. <br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. No affidavit for the opposite parties is filed. So also, no documents are produced. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and that he is entitled to reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The facts referred to here before alleged in the complaint are stated by the complainant in his affidavit. To substantiate the said facts, certain documents are produced. In addition to it, the opposite parties have neither filed version nor filed any affidavit or produced any documents.<br /> <br /> 8. Learned advocate for the opposite parties argued that, complainant has not filed any claim petition before the opposite parties and there being no repudiation, there is no cause of action and hence, complaint is not maintainable. In the complaint, though the complainant has not specifically used the word, that he had submitted the “claim petition” to the opposite parties, it is alleged that, relevant documents were produced before the opposite parties, but the claim is not settled. It is relevant to note that, prior to filing of the complaint, complainant had sent notice to opposite parties, which was replied and it is on record. In the second paragraph of the reply, it is stated by the opposite parties that, “on perusal of claim form submitted by your client …….”. Hence, it is clear that, in fact, complainant had submitted claim form to the opposite parties. Hence, though in the complaint, specific word as “claimed form” is not stated, in the reply, in fact, opposite parties have admitted that the complainant had submitted claim form. Hence, the arguments of the learned advocate for opposite parties that no claim was made before the opposite parties and that there is no cause of action etc., is without substance. In the complaint, complainant has alleged that, the opposite parties did not settle the claim. In the reply, for repudiating the claim, certain reasons are assigned.<br /> <br /> 9. For repudiating the claim or not settling the claim of the complainant, the date of accident, running of the vehicle and non-tallying of the damages observed in the vehicle are stated. But, as noted here before, opposite parties have not filed any version and to substantiate the said contention, there is no evidence. Under the circumstances, it can be said that, the claim made by the complainant has not been denied. <br /> <br /> 10. It is the case of the complainant that, after he reported the accident to the opposite parties, authorized surveyor inspected the vehicle and submitted survey report. Copy of the survey report is on record. Adopting in the four modes, the surveyor has assessed the loss. On the loss assessment on repair basis, amount has been estimated at Rs.1,13,303/-. On the basis of cash loss, assessed at Rs.69,951/-. On total loss basis, amount is worked out at Rs.58,000/- and on salvage loss basis Rs.47,500/-. Advocate for the complainant submitted that, the mode beneficial or favourble to the complainant may be considered. However, advocate for the opposite parties pointed out that, declared value of the vehicle was Rs.70,000/- and even the policy was for Rs.70,000/-. Under the circumstances, more than the said amount, the complainant is not entitled to any amount. Accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant, within a month from the date of the order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 3. Further, opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 1st December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />