Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has put up a claim against the Opposite party for a total sum of Rs.68,643/- arising out of damage caused to his vehicle due to gushing of rain water in to the filter and silencer pipe which eventually rushed to engine on 09.06.2005, which is insured with the Opposite party and on the failure of the Opposite party to reimburse his claim. It is further contended that he despite making several claims with the Opposite party and issue of legal notices, the Opposite party has failed to honour his claim. <br /> 2. The Opposite party in it’s version admitting of insuring the vehicle of the Complainant with it, has denied all other allegations and contended that the Complainant despite several requests and reminders did not submit the claim form and necessary documents for it’s consideration for considering the claim of the Complainant. Therefore, the complainant who remained silent without submitting relevant documents is not entitled for any relief and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> 3. During the course of enquiry, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence, so also the Divisional Manager of the Opposite party has filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the stand they have taken in the respective complaint and their version, they have also produced certain letters. <br /> 4. On hearing both the sides and perusal of the documents, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that despite making claim with necessary documents to the Opposite party, the Opposite party has failed to settle his claim and thereby caused deficiency in it’s service?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Answered in part in the affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The complainant in the complaint and affidavit has contended that on 09.06.2005 rain water gushed in to the engine of his vehicle, resulting in the vehicle coming to grinding halt and he on 10.06.2005 informed the Opposite party about the same and submitted a claim along with photocopy of Driving licence, Insurance policy, Registration certificate etc. and thereafter he also furnished other relevant documents to the Opposite party for settling his claim and also refers to letter he had addressed to the Opposite party on 12.07.2005 and a copy of the legal notice dated 16.11.2005 and further claimed had he got the vehicle repaired through Urs Car Service and incurred repair charges of Rs.24,361/- and claimed interest at 24% on that amount with traveling expenses and under different count in all Rs.68,643/-. <br /> 7. The Opposite party reiterating it’s stand has contended that on the reporting of the accident, they appointed surveyor to assess the loss who in turn addressed letters to the complainant on 20.12.2005, 17.01.2006 requesting the complainant to furnish necessary documents and particulars for assessing the loss and has also referred to a letter written to the complainant on 10.03.2006 giving final chance to the complainant to produce relevant documents within 7 days and therefore contended that the claim of the complainant could not be settled for want of relevant documents. <br /> 8. On perusal of the 1st letter of the complainant dated 10.06.2005 addressed to the Opposite party, he has informed about the problem that his vehicle suffered by furnishing some details. But, as contended by the complainant in the complaint as well as in the affidavit he has not furnished the relevant documents like R.C., Driving licence, Insurance certificate, and Claim form as required by an Insurance Company for considering the claim of the insured. Therefore, as found from this letter dated 10.06.2005 of the complainant, he has only furnished certain particulars in that letter but not enclosed the documents. In this letter, the complainant even has requested the Opposite party to issue claim form. Therefore, the contention of the complainant as contended in para 6 of the complaint that he fulfilled all the requirements on 10.06.2005 is false and cannot be believed. Further, coming to the next letter of the complainant dated 12.07.2005 and copy of the legal notice dated 16.11.2005, the complainant has only reiterated the damage caused to his Car and the claim he has made but has not mentioned anywhere having furnished the documents required and sought for by the Opposite party. The Surveyor of the Opposite party through his letter dated 20.12.2005 and 17.01.2006 requested the complainant to furnish the documents mentioned therein to enable him to prepare the surveyor report and in the 2nd letter he has given 7 days time limit for furnishing documents. Thereafter, the Opposite party on 10.03.2006 also has further given 7 days time to the complainant to furnish the required documents, but it appears the complainant has turned deafer to those requests. It is not the case of the complainant that he replied to any of these letters nor furnished documents as requested by the Opposite party at any time. But, it is found that the surveyor of the Opposite party finally on 03.03.2006 shown to had visited the guarage where the complainant left the vehicle for repair and after hearing the complainant estimated the cost of repair at Rs.10,770.02 and labour charges at Rs.3,416.20 and shown that the liability to the Opposite party is at Rs.13,686.22 in all. The complainant has no doubt shown to have got his Car repaired through Urs Car Service Centre, Mysore and produced two bills; one for Rs.20,401/- and another for Rs.3,960/- towards the repair charges. But, that estimate and repairs found to had been done unilaterally by the complainant without getting loss assessed through the agency of the Opposite party or in their presence. The complainant has also not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove the replacement of certain parts and repairs was the result of gushing of water to the engine and that the Opposite party is liable to reimburse the repair charges as has been got done by him. Therefore, on perusal of the contentions of both the parties and the documents that are produced go to show that there are contributory factors from both the parties in considering and settling the claim of the complainant and that has resulted in deficiency in settling the claim of the complainant. The estimate arrived by the surveyor of the Opposite party has not been questioned by the complainant. The assessment as could be seen from the letter of the Surveyor dated 30.03.2007 appears to have been done after hearing the complainant and on the basis of his statement and taking photographs pertaining to the repair, bills, etc., Therefore, the estimation arrived by the valuer of the Opposite party sounds to the reason than repair charges claimed by the complainant. Thus, the materials placed before this Forum leads to an irresistible conclusion that the vehicle of the complainant suffered damages due to gushing of rain water to the engine and that the vehicle had valid insurance and therefore the Opposite party is liable to reimburse the repair charges as estimated by it’s valuer. The complainant who failed to honour the requirements of the Opposite party despite requests has taken the responsibility on his own to get it repaired through an agency unilaterally, without the involvement of the Opposite party as such he has to shoulder the expenditure he had incurred over and above the estimated repair charges of the Surveyor of the Opposite party. Therefore, under these circumstances, the complainant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.13,686.22 with a cost of the complaint. Hence, we answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.13,686.22 within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it shall pay interest at 15% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The Opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000/- being the cost of this complaint. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />