Date of filing:31.01.2020 & 18.02.2020

                                                   Date of Disposal:01.03.2023

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 01^st Day of March 2023

PRESENT

Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NOs.103/2020 & 155/2020

COMMON ORDER

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. These appeals are filed one by OP1 and another by OP2 in CC/17/2019 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udupi arising out of the order dated 09.12.2019.

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels on record in respective parties.

3. One Mr.Manohar Shetty raised consumer complaint before the Forum below seeking directions against OP Nos.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.4,49,283/- towards damages, technician salary and other expenses alleging deficiency in service.

4. It is found from the appeal papers and impugned order that though OP1/appellant in A/103/2020 was represented by learned counsel failed to submit their version and also failed to submit affidavit evidence to rebut the case put forth by the complainant.  While OP2 the Banker appellant in A/155/2020 submitted version and the Forum below held an enquiry on the basis of affidavit evidence of CW-1 of Mr.Manohar Shetty along with Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 found OP Nos.1 and 2 rendered deficiency in service thereby directed both to pay Rs.1,81,513/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 06.02.2019 and directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment to the complainant and awarded Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses.

5. Learned counsel for appellant in A/155/2020 namely OP2 the Banker submits that Forum below failed to perceive the facts rightly and passed impugned order is contrary to the facts and law and would submit that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and capricious.  It is found from the enquiry of the case that complainant has availed loan from OP2/appellant herein had purchased the vehicle bearing No.KA-20D-5402 for Rs.28,00,000/-.  It is found from the enquiry that he has availed loan of Rs.19,00,000/- through OP2.  But facts remained that the alleged rendering deficiency in service on account of his claim could be against the insurer namely OP1/appellant in A/103/2020.  As such learned counsel for appellant/OP2 is right in contending that the Forum below wrongly held OP2 jointly and severally liable to pay the award passed.  In our view, the impugned order in so far as OP2 is concerned does call for an interference.

6. Learned counsel for appellant/OP1 namely the insurer submits that the Forum below wrongly directed OP1 to pay Rs.1,81,513/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. and wrongly awarded compensation and litigation cost, though insurer has already satisfied the complainant to the repair of damaged ambulance tempo traveller to the extent of Rs.2,72,667/- on 06.02.2019 itself.  Commission found that in Ex.C13 survey report IRDA Licensee assessed damage to the extent of Rs.2,72,667/- but facts remained that as per Ex.C3 complainant had paid Rs.4,78,950/-.  Further to be noted from the enquiry filed and impugned order for OP1/appellant herein represented by learned counsel failed to submit version and failed to submit affidavit evidence to rebut Ex.C3.  It is found from the impugned order and appeal papers that the policy obtained by complainant is for the period commencing from 11.08.2018 to 10.08.2019 since had paid Rs.13,797/- towards purchase and the IDV value is Rs.8,79,697/-.  But facts remained that as per Ex.C3 complainant had paid Rs.4,78,950/-.  If Rs.4,78,950/- has to be considered after deduction of Rs.2,72,667/- balance would be Rs.2,06,283/- which according to complainant was duly paid by him to the Force Motors, Udupi.  It is not that insured vehicle got repaired other than the authorized service centre but was repaired by Force Motors, Udupi.  As such the Forum below was of the view to hold that insurer is still to pay which is assessed at Rs.1,81,513/-.  In our view, considering non examination of the author of Ex.C3 or any technician, it would be just and proper to reduce the amount directed to be payable by insurer to Rs.1,00,000/-.

7. The Forum below awarded the interest @ 10% p.a. which in our view is on higher side considering the rate of interest on Bank deposits as guided by RBI from time to time. Further awarding Rs.50,000/- towards compensation is again held on higher side as to be reduced to Rs.20,000/-.  In so far as awarding cost of litigation is concerned, is maintainable.  Accordingly, Commission proceed to allow the appeals in part in the following terms:

Complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby allowed in part and directed OP1 insurer to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of 06.02.2019 till realization  and do pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for causing inconvenience as the case may be and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation within 60 days.  The complaint as against OP2 Banker is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

8. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transfer to the Forum below for needful.

9. Keep the original order in 103/2020 and copies thereof in other connected matter to complete the record.

10. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

Lady Member                                Judicial Member  

*GGH*