BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST 2024
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1448/2012
The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd., 4th Floor, Kalburgi Mansion, Opp: Muncipal Corporation, Lamington Road, Hubli, Now represented by Bajaj Alianz General Ins Co.Ltd., #31, Ground Floor, TBR Tower, 1st Cross, New Mission Road, Adjacent to Jain College & Banglore Stock Exchange, Banglore-560027. (BY, Sri. A.N.Krishnaswam, Advocate..) | …Appellant/s |
V/s
Sri.Md.Rafiq, S/o Maheboob Sab, aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o H#6-142, Mominpura, Gulbarga. (By, Sri. Danappa P.Panibhat, Advocate..) | ….Respondent/s |
O R D E R
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite Party preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2012 passed in CC.No.163/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gulbarga.
2. Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, the grounds urged before this Commission by the appellant to set aside the order passed by the District Commission is that the respondent/complainant had not submitted the required documents in order to settle the claim made by the complainant. Due to non supply of the documents the claim of the complainant closed as “No claim”. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant had approached the District Commission and the District Commission after trial allowed the complainant and directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- under the head of own damage claim with 9% interest p.a.
3. The appellant further submits that the complainant ought to produce the documents as and when it was called for production but, the complainant was failed to produce the documents. The District Commission without considering the said facts and also having no any deficiency in service had allowed the complaint. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
4. The District Commission after noticing the documents produced before them had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount. The District Commission had rightly found out that when, the documents are available before the District Commission itself this appellant would have settled the claim. Instead of that this appellant had not came forward to receive the documents produced. We are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. The very purpose of collecting the documents from the complainant is to settle the claim. When the documents itself are produced before District Commission, the appellant could have obtain all the documents which are required for the purpose of settlement instead of that he has dragged the matter without any reason hence, it is a clear case of deficiency in service. The District Commission had rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and allowed the complaint. No interference is required. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, hence we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
ARD*
