THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 169/2013

Future General India Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Pasadena, No.18/1, (Old No.125/A)

3^rd Floor, Ashoka Pillar Road, 1^st Block,

Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 082.

…….Appellant/s.

(By Shri/Smt M.R.Manoj Kumar, Adv.,)

                                          -Versus-

M/s Ramesh Tours and Travels Pvt., Ltd.,

Represented by Sri. Ramesh,

Aged about 42 years S/o Gopal,

No.6, 3^rd Cross, Victoria Layout,

Bangalore – 560 047.

……….. Respondent/s

(By Shri/Smt Ragavendra, Adv.,)

:ORDERS:

BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR  -  JUDICIAL MEMBER

         The Opposite Party in complaint No.416/2012 on the file of III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Commission, has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated:28/11/2012 in C.C.No.416/2012, wherein the District Commission directed the appellant to pay Rs.54,785/- towards own damage claim together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 13.01.2012 till payment along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

         The appellant submits that the complainant had obtained an insurance policy i.e. four wheeler package policy towards vehicle bearing registration No.KA:51:A-0006 which is valid from 03.10.2011 to 02.10.2012 vide policy bearing No.2011-V1443217-FTX.  The said vehicle is a Luxury vehicle and this Opposite Party had covered the vehicle for a total value at Rs.6,87,150/- and mutually agreed upon Motor Add on Covers Policy schedule was issued wherein relating to Section I i.e., “Loss or Damage Caused to the vehicle Insured”, the policy so issued was as follows:-

“Zero Depreciation Cap – Applicable only for two accidents during the policy period, Refer the attached policy wordings for detailed coverage.

IDV comprising of On-Road Price.

Reimbursement of Consumables, reimbursement for the cost of consumables up-to 2% of the admissible claim amount subject to a maximum of Rs.3,000/-. 

Such being the case, the complainant had informed that the vehicle was met with an accident and suffered damages.  After the information they have appointed one surveyor to assess the loss on 18.10.2011.  Immediately, the said approved surveyor has investigated the vehicle on 18.10.2011 at Navnit Motors Private Limited.  Subsequently, the said surveyor visited the said workshop on 09.11.2011, where he noticed that the vehicle was duly repaired and no opportunity was provide to assess the damages caused to the vehicle in the accident and insisted for payment of the entire expenses towards repairs.  The said claim was not settled as claimed by the complainant and they have settled of the claim as per the information of the surveyor.  After the claim, they have settled to the tune of Rs.3,72,962.25/- by way of two cheques, one for Rs.1,08,113/- and another cheque for Rs.2,64,849.25/- as per the information given by the surveyor.  After settlement of the said claim, the complainant approached the District Commission for remaining payment amount towards settlement, for which the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed them to pay the balance amount of Rs.54,785/- along with interest and cost.     

3.       Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party appeared before this Commission.

4.       Heard the arguments.

5.       On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party and on the date of the accident/damage the policy was valid.  It is also an admitted fact that after the claim, the appellant/Opposite Party has settled the claim to the tune of Rs.3,72,968/- as per the survey report. The appellant submits that the surveyor has made depreciation on several parts and according to the said information they have settled the matter and submits no deficiency in service.  But the complaint/respondent had insisted the Opposite Party to pay bumper to bumper claim that means to say Zero deprecation cap.  Accordingly, the District Commission allowed the complaint.  But the District Commission has made an error in allowing the complaint without considering the survey report.  We are of the opinion that it is a condition precedent that the surveyor has to give an opinion with respect to assessment of the damages; there afterwards, the complainant has to repair the vehicle.  Whereas in this case we noticed that before assessment by the surveyor towards damages, the complainant had repaired the vehicle and submits details/documents for settlement, which is not acceptable.  Even though there is a clause of claim under “0” deprecation that cannot be accepted, because the surveyor has not made any assessment towards loss.  After the repair of the vehicle, the complainant was only entitled to eligible repair charges and accordingly the appellant has settled the claim.  For this reason, the complaint has to be dismissed.  But the District Commission made an error in allowing the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.54,785/- along with cost and interest.  Hence, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount as ordered by the District Commission.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;-             

:ORDER:

The appeal is allowed.  No costs.

The impugned order dated:28/11/2012 passed by Bangalore Urban III Additional District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.416/2012 is hereby set-aside.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss