Date of Filing:17.12.2008<br /> Date of Order:28.05.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 28th DAY OF MAY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2724 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Badrinath Karpur<br /> S/o. Late Karpur Gopal Rao<br /> R/at No. 64/2, 1st Main Road<br /> 3rd Cross, Chamarajapet<br /> Bangalore 560018 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General<br /> Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> GE Plaza, Airport Road<br /> Yerwada, Pune 411006<br /> Represented by its Manager<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General<br /> Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> No. 105A/107A, Cears Plaza<br /> No. 136, Residency Road<br /> Bangalore 560 025<br /> Represented by its Manager Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant is a registered owner of the ford car being registration No. KA 01 MB 3435 and the said car was covered by insurance policy. The said car met with accident on 08.09.2008 and matter was informed to the opposite parties. Car was taken to workshop. The car was repaired at a total cost of Rs. 87,215/-. Out of said amount opposite parties paid Rs. 27,122/-. Complainant suffered lot of mental agony. The opposite parties are liable to pay damages. The complainant has claimed in all Rs. 1,35,593/- from the opposite parties. <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version. It is contended that opposite parties issued policy in favour of complainant. Opposite parties deputed registered surveyor to examine the vehicle and assess the loss. The surveyor assessed damages at Rs. 27,724/- towards spare parts after depreciation and labour charges. Opposite parties made payment of Rs. 27,122/- to the complainant. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any more amount. The opposite parties have prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit Evidences are filed.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard. <br /> 5. The point for consideration is:<br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any more amount from the opposite parties? If so, what would be the quantum of amount?<br /> <br /> 6. The complainant has produced copy of policy. The effective date of policy was from 19.12.2007 to 18.12.2008. Vehicle IDV is Rs. 3,51,178/-. The complainant has produced repair invoice of Metro Ford authorise workshop Rs. 41,983/- has been shown towards cost of spare parts and the complainant has produced another invoice of Metro Ford. As per this Invoice Rs. 45,232/- is shown towards labour charges and Overhauling. Therefore, on the basis of invoice produced by the complainant, the complainant is claiming Rs. 41,983/- towards spare parts and Rs. 45,232/- towards labour charges. As per the opposite parties a qualifying surveyor was appointed and surveyor submitted assessment and he has made assessment of damage to the vehicle at Rs. 27,724/- and as per the surveyor’s report opposite parties have paid amount to the complainant. The complainant has not satisfied with the payment made by the opposite parties. The complainant is claiming a balance amount of Rs. 60,093/-. The complainant has produced receipt issued by Metro Ford dated 19.09.2008. As per this receipt the complainant has paid Rs. 20,000/- to the Metro Ford advance payment towards repairs. The complainant has produced another receipt of Metro Ford dated 14.10.2008. As per this receipt the complainant has paid Rs. 40,093/- to the Metro Ford. The complainant has not produced any more receipts except these two receipts. As per the repair Invoice the complainant is claiming Rs. 45,232/- towards labour charges. This amount appears to be wrong and not liable to be accepted as true and correct. It is unbelievable and unacceptable that Rs. 45,232/- would be labour charges. In the repair invoice total labour charges has been shown as Rs. 5,500/- and towards spare parts Rs. 34,712/- is shown. To that education cess, service tax have added and the total amount is shown as Rs. 45,232/-. Therefore, the question of claiming labour charges of Rs. 45,232/- is absolutely wrong and misleading. The surveyor in his report has assessed the labour charges shown at Rs. 5,500/- appears to be approximately correct. The complainant has produced repair invoice for Rs. 41,983/-. This appears to be misleading and not correct because in this invoice also labour total Rs. 5,495/- is shown and parts total Rs. 31,827/- is shown and education cess, service tax etc. added. In this way Rs. 41,983/- is shown. Therefore, the repair invoices produced by the complainant cannot be accepted as they do not reflect true and correct facts. The complainant has produced receipt dated 14.10.2008 as per this receipt he has paid Rs. 40,093/- to the Metro Ford. The receipt produced by the complainant does not tally with the repair invoice produced by the complainant. However, as per repair invoice dated 13.10.2008 the total amount shown in the invoice is Rs. 45,232/-. This invoice can be accepted and the opposite party has paid Rs. 27,122/-. The remaining amount which may be payable to the complainant comes to Rs. 18,110/-. Therefore, by accepting the repair invoice dated 13.10.2008 the opposite party could have paid Rs. 45,232/-. But the opposite parties relying on the surveyor’s assessment has paid Rs. 27,122/-. The surveyor’s assessment is not the final and conclusive assessment. The opposite parties could have seen the repair bills, receipts and other documents. But, the opposite parties have not looked into other documents except the assessment made by the surveyor. Therefore, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. On the facts and circumstances of the case it is just, fair, reasonable and proper to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 18,110/- to the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The Complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 18,110/- to the complainant along with 10% interest on the said amount from 14.10.2008 till payment / realisation within 30 days from the date of this order. <br /> 8. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 28TH DAY OF MAY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />