Date of Filing : 22.11.2010
Date of Order : 30.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 30th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO B.Sc.B.L. …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASAL I, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 2626/2010
Sri.Zameer Pasha, major,
S/o.Sri.Abdul Zabbar,
No.21, 4th Cross, M.D.Block,
Sirsi Road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore 560 027.
(By Advocate Sri.D.Srinivasa) ……. Complainant
V/s.
M/s Bharati Axa General Insurance Co. LTd.,
1st Floor, The Ferns Icon,
Survey No.28, Next to Akme Ballet,
Doddanekkundi, Off:Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore 560 037.
Rep. by its Manager.
(By Advocate Sri.H.N.Keshava Prashanth) … Opposite party
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that yet to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.4,98,500/- are necessary:
1. The complainant had insured his lorry KA-01-C-9051 with the OP and it was valid between 28.01.2010 and 27.01.2011. On 29.3.2010 the lorry met with an accident and sustained damages. The jurisdictional police registered the case. After after the police formalitiesm it was towed to M/s Kumar Auto diesel works, at Doddamavalli Bangalore, paying Rs.6000/- as towing charges. The said work shop estimated a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- for replacement of the spare parts and Rs.73,500/- towards labour charges. This was intimated to the OP with claim form which offered only Rs.83,044/-. The complainant was/is not agreeable for the same. Hence the complainant has issued notice to the OP on 25.10.2010 as it is not complied with, this complaint is filed.
2. In brief the version of the OP are:
The insurance, accident, claim, are admitted. On the intimation by the complainant, the OP appointed Mr.Santhosh the investigator and surveyor to assess the spot, investigated who submitted his survey report. The complainant had submitted claim form and document. On receipt of the same with estimate, Sri.G.Venkatesh surveyor verified everything of the vehicle in question, who was deputed, who conducted detailed investigation and assess the loss at Rs.83,044/-. Accordingly the OP offered the said amount, but the complainant has not received the same. Even now OP is ready to pay the said amount as assessed by the surveyor.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits. Only the complainant had filed written arguments and the OP was heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are
A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
B) What order ?
5. Our answers are:
A & B as per the detailed order for the following
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant had insured his vehicle with the OP and insurance was valid at that time on 29.3.2010 when the vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages. The complainant towed the vehicle to the garage and the garage people assessed/estimation for certain amount. The OP on knowing of the accident, sent one Mr.Santosh to the spot, who verified and gave his report and after the vehicle been towed and given to the garage, the complainant submitted the claim form along with the documents which were sent to G.Venkatesh, Insurance surveyor and loss assesser who has been trained, who verified records, went to the garage and after entire analysis of the entire record, he has given a report stating that the net loss is Rs.83,044/-. As per the surveyor report, OP tendered the amount but the complainant refused. Then what is the deficiency in this? the surveyor has considered every material and gave the report. How he is wrong is not explained. Merely one person has given estimation for higher amount, it does not mean that the OP is bound by considering the estimation and ignoring surveyors report. On analysis of the actual fact the surveyor was given report. The complainant has not shown how the surveyor was wrong. No other technical person has verified the surveyor is report with the estimation and stated that the surveyor report is wrong. Hence under these circumstance, though there is no deficiency in service still as the OP is ready to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor, if we direct the OP to pay the same that will meet the ends of justice. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following
ORDER
1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.83,044/- within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. OP is also directed to send the amount as ordered at No. 2 above to the complainant by DD through RPAD and submit to this Forum a compliance report within 45 days from the date of this Order.
4. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
5. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th day of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
