BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.1264 OF 2005 AGAINST C.D.NO.65 OF 2002 District Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Basheerbagh Branch, 611, Babukhan
Estate, Hyderabad. Appellant/
Opp.party
And
Mr.V.Rathnakar, S/o.Subba Rao,
V.Late, aged 47 years, Occ:Business,
R/o.C-01, Srikrishna Apartments,
8-3-324, Yellareddyguda,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.P.Phalguna Rao
Counsel for the Respondent:Mr.P.Rajasripathi Rao
CORAM:THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order : (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.65/2005 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Escorts Vehicle in August, 2000 which was registered at RTA., Visakhpatnam and insured with opposite party for a period of one year from 8-8-2000 to 7-8-2001 under a comprehensive policy. The complainant submitted that the said vehicle was hit by a trailer and damaged on 16-12-2000 when it was stationed by the road side near Kanchikacherla Village. The complainant informed the said accident to opposite party at Vijayawada and on the next day of the accident, a surveyor, has been deputed by the branch office. After inspection of the vehicle and on the instructions of the surveyor, the complainant transferred the vehicle to the workshop for repairs at Guntur on the same day where estimate of cost was obtained and the complainant preferred a claim with the opposite party branch office at Vijayawada. The complainant also submitted that a second surveyor also visited the workshop at Guntur on 18/19th December, 2000 and a third surveyor also inspected the vehicle after 3 days. The complainant submitted that he incurred a sum of Rs.2,43,606.56 ps. towards repairs and replacement including labour charges and the payment receipts and bills were forwarded by him to the opposite party along with required information. Even after more than 10 months, the claim was not processed though he visited the offices at Hyderabad an Vijayawada number of times, therefore, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 19-10-2001. The complainant submitted that after receipt of legal notice, opposite party sent a motor claim discharge voucher for a sum of Rs.33,244/- towards full and final satisfaction and discharge of all claims under the policy of the complainant. The complainant rejected the same and submitted that the opposite party failed to settle the full amount. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to settle the claim amount of Rs.2,43,606.56 ps. with 24% interest along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Opposite party filed counter and admitted the issuance of the comprehensive policy and that the vehicle met with an accident and police registered a case. They also admitted that a surveyor conducted spot survey and transferred the vehicle to the nearest workshop at Guntur and finally one Sri A.Rama Rao also conducted a survey and submitted a survey report wherein the loss was estimated around Rs.46,994/-. Opposite party submitted that after taking into consideration, the terms and conditions of the policy and after verifying the documents, bills etc. the said claim was arrived at Rs.33,244/- and the same was intimated to the complainant but the claim discharge voucher was not returned to them and there was also no communication from the complainant. Hence they submitted that the complainant is no longer interested in settlement of the claim, which was accordingly informed to him and submitted that there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A17 and B1 to B5 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence either documentary or oral or even an affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant to establish his case for an amount of Rs.2,43,606-56 ps. and submitted that on the other hand that it has rightly offered an amount of Rs.33,244/- to the complainant based upon the detailed survey report. He also submitted that the District Forum ought not to have allowed the complaint partly on the impression that the claim of the complaint is very high and the settled amount is very l and submitted that they have arrived at an amount of Rs.33,244/- based on the survey report. He submitted that there is no deficiency of service on its part and also submitted that the complainant kept silent for a long time in responding to the repeated letters addressed by them to forward voucher duly signed to enable them to release the cheque for Rs.33,244/-. He further submitted that the District Forum ought not to have observed that the opposite party failed to furnish any valid reasons and submitted that at the first instance, surveyor shall be sent to the place of accident to note down the external damages to the vehicle, since the internal damages are not visible at that time and thereafter the same surveyor or if he is not available, other surveyor shall visit the garage where the vehicle has been kept for causing repairs and after dismantling the vehicle, the said surveyor has to assess the loss taking into consideration the external damages in the spot and also internal damages at the garage. Thereafter after receiving information from the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured that all the repairs are carried out, the same shall be verified by the surveyor, and therefore it cannot be said that three surveyors were appointed. He also submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that one surveyor has assessed the loss for a different amount and the insurance company appointed another surveyor, in order to reduce the assessment and submitted that the final assessment was made by Mr.A.Rama Rao, surveyor, hence the question of conducting three surveys for the purpose of considering the claim amount does not arise and prayed to allow the appeal.
We have perused the material on record. The facts not in dispute are that the appellant/opposite party had issued an insurance policy to the respondent for his Escorts vehicle for the period between 8-8-2000 to 7-8-2001 and that on 16-12-2000 the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party even after 10 months, did not process the claim and after receipt of legal notice, opposite party sent a motor claim discharge voucher for a sum of Rs.33,244/- towards full and final settlement, which the complainant had rejected since it is his case that he had spent an amount of Rs.2,43,606.56 ps. towards repairs. It is the case of the opposite party that the District Forum erred in observing that three surveyors were appointed. It is their contention that the first surveyor would be sent to the place of accident to assess the damage and another surveyor or the same one would be sent to the garage where the vehicle is kept for causing repairs and then the surveyor would take into consideration the external and internal damage at the garage. After the repairs are carried out the same will be verified by the same surveyor or some other surveyor for a final conclusion. Therefore, it cannot be said that three surveyors were appointed without any reason. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party contended that the complainant had failed to establish his case that he had spent even Rs.1,25,000/- for repairs.
We have gone through Exs.A1 to A17 marked on behalf of the complainant. The first surveyor visited the site on 17-12-2000, second surveyor visited the garage on 19-12-2000 and thereafter when the complainant’s claim was not processed, a legal notice was issued on 19-10-2001 and on 29-10-2001 insurance company had sent a letter (Ex.A11) that as per the final survey report, an amount of Rs.33,244/- is being settled. Ex.B3 is the survey report of Mr.A.Rama Rao dated 27-2-2001 in which he assess the damage at Rs.46,994/-. It is pertinent to note that the vehicle is a new vehicle of 2000 make and the period of insurance was 8-8-2000 to 7-8-2001 and the accident took place on 16-12-2000 that means the said vehicle involved in the accident is a new vehicle. The surveyor in his report has not stated as to how he had arrived at that figure when the vehicle involved in the accident is a new vehicle and the surveyor has not filed any documentary evidence like invoices or estimates for his assessment of loss. Whereas on the other hand the complainant has established his case by filing Ex.A13, which is a invoice copy of Vishnutek Engineers Private Limited for the repairs carried out by them. The act of the opposite party in keeping the claim pending for 10 months and appointing two surveyors and sending discharge voucher for the complainant for Rs.33,244/- without explaining as to how they arrived at that figure even when their own surveyor has assessed at Rs.46,994/-, can be termed as deficiency of service and we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum where they have only awarded 50% of the invoice amount (Ex.A13) which is the repairs bill.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT. LADY MEMBER.
JM Dated 25-9-2008
