Dtd.06.07.2023                                     A/819/2016

O R D E R

       HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.31.12.2015 passed in CC/22/2015 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Forum.  
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels.
3. The undisputed facts are: The Complainant is registered owner of Volvo bus bearing no.KA01/F4576 which is insured under OP and as on the date of accident dtd.22.07.2011 the policy was in force. The only dispute is with regard to non-settlement of claim. Whereas, OP submits that, as per survey report the damages to the retarder assembly is not due to hitting of stone, but is due to internal mechanical breakdown of the part because of user of the vehicle and therefore, repudiated the claim of the Complainant. In this regard, we perused the list of documents submitted by OP marked as Ex-R1 to R3, where Ex-R1 & R2 are the survey reports. However, the Forum below, ignoring these documents, recorded findings at page no.13 as: “it is however necessary to emphasize that even after giving an opportunity to produce the survey report the OP miserably failed to produce survey report. In the absence of the same, we hold that, the amount claimed by the Complainants supported by bill appears to be genuine” is not justifiable, since the Forum below failed to appreciate these documents properly before passing impugned order. It is the contention of OP that, repudiation of the claim is in accordance with law and strictly with reference to the terms and conditions of the policy issued to the said vehicle. The policy covers only the accidental damages and not the wear and tear of the vehicle due to user of the vehicle and not any other risks, has some considerable force, since as per the survey report the alleged damages to the retarder has no relevance to the alleged cause as stated in the claim form. Since the surveyors are appointed under the Insurance Act and on their report insurance claim is considered, in our view, OP rightly repudiated the claim as per survey report, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. With such conclusion, we proceed to allow the appeal, consequently set aside the impugned order. In the result, complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed with no order as to cost.  
4. The amount in deposit is directed to be refund to the Appellant with proper identification by their advocate.  
5. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

Lady Member             Judicial Member              President      

*NS*