By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complaint is filed against the deficiency in service in awarding sufficient amount as compensation to the loss sustained to the complainant’s Tata Indigo car. The case is that the complainant insured his Tata Indigo car with the respondents. The said vehicle met with an accident and the complainant submitted the claim application with all the relevant documents. The complainant spent Rs.1,94,497/- for repairing the vehicle. But the respondent sanctioned only Rs.1,34,841/-. The complainant accepted the money under protest. The complainant issued a lawyer notice on 21.10.05 demanding to pay the balance amount. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The respondent denied the allegation in the counter filed. He has admitted the issue of a comprehensive motor policy for the vehicle KL8/A3-1176 Tata Indigo belonged to the complainant subject to the terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations stipulated thereon. The settlement of claim for the property damage is subject to the depreciation clause in the policy. The respondent denied that the complainant had spent Rs.1,94,497/- for repairing the vehicle due to the accident. This is an exaggerated amount and not true with the reality. The respondent allowed Rs.1,34,841/- as compensation towards the damage and paid the amount without any protest from the complainant. The complainant had received the amount as full and final settlement. On receipt of the information regarding the accident the respondent deputed a surveyor and loss assessor to assess the extent of damage caused to the vehicle. Accordingly the surveyor inspected the vehicle at the premises of M/s. Koyenco Autos (P) Ltd. where the complainant had entrusted to repair his vehicle. The surveyor assessed the actual damage caused to the vehicle due to the alleged accident. So the complainant is not legally entitled to get Rs.59,656/- as compensation. Based on the survey report and other documents Rs.1,34,841/- is arrived by the respondent for the loss sustained to the complainant’s vehicle and the competent authority has accorded sanction to settle the claim for Rs.1,34,841/- on repair basis. The respondent has very right to deduct salvage value and depreciation as per policy condition. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to get the compensation claimed?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence adduced are Ext. P1, Exts. R1 to R9 and the oral testimony of PW1 and RW1.
5. Points: The complainant’s case is that he spent Rs.1,94,497/- to repair the vehicle that met with the accident. The complainant submitted the claim form to compensate the loss sustained to him on the basis of the insurance policy availed by him. The respondent sanctioned only Rs.1,34,841/-. Even though he received the money under protest the complainant claimed that he is entitled to get Rs.59,656/- from the respondent. On the other side the respondent has stated that the complainant has accepted the money as full and final settlement without any protest. The respondent has deputed a surveyor and loss assessor to assess the extent of damage caused to the vehicle. The amount was sanctioned on the basis of the report furnished by the surveyor. The amount claimed by the respondent is an exaggerated one. So he is not entitled to get the amount.
6. The complainant has stated that he has spent Rs.1,94,496/- to repair the vehicle. But the estimated cost of repairs has not been stated in the claim for (column 8(6)). The respondent has stated that Rs.1,34,941/- was sanctioned on the basis of Ext. R1 report. The surveyor is examined as RW1. While cross examining RW1 no specific question has been asked to him to prove that the reduction made in the estimate submitted to him is not correct or baseless. So the complainant failed to prove that he is entitled to get the amount claimed by him. Hence the complaint lacks merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 25th day of June 2012.
