Date of filing:24-03-2012
Date of Disposal: 28-04-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 28th day of April, 2014
C.C.NO.18/2012
Between:
G.S.Mansoor
S/o Abdul Khadar Shaik
D.No.6-3-186,
Ram Nagar
Anantapur Town. …. Complainant
Vs.
M/s Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Zonal Manager,
417053 No.19-3-13(M), 3rd floor,
Renigunta Road
Tirupati. …. Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri R.Ramakumar, Advocate for the complainant and Sri Y.Rameswara Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of the both side, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC):- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.1,82,574/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a registered owner of Toyota Fortuner bearing No.AP-02-AJ-9090 . The complainant insured the said vehicle with the opposite party under Policy No.417053/31/12/002636 and the insurance coverage period is from 14-07-2011 to 13-07-2012. Subsequently the said vehicle was involved in an accident on 17-11-2011 and in the said accident the vehicle got damaged and a Criminal case was also registered under Cr.No.84/2011 dt.17-11-2011 of Rapthadu P.S. The information about the accident was informed to the opposite party. A spot surveyor was appointed by the opposite party, who conducted the spot survey. After spot survey, the vehicle was towed to Viva Magna Wheelers Pvt. Ltd.,Bangalore for estimation and repairs to the damaged vehicle. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards towing charges. Viva Magna Wheelers Pvt. Ltd., prepared an estimate for the repair of the vehicle at Rs.6,00,000/- and the surveyor from the opposite party also inspected and noted down all the damages. The estimate was prepared by the repairer in the presence of the surveyor appointed by the opposite party. The estimation was informed to the opposite party, but the surveyor did not furnish the survey report to the complainant.
3. After estimation the repairs to the vehicle was done and the actual repair charges including labour came to Rs.4,90,132/- . The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 24-11-2011 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 13-12-2011 through Bank and paid a sum of Rs.40,132/- by cash, totally the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,90,132/- to Viva Magna Wheelers (P) Ltd., After submission of the bills, the opposite party paid a sum of Rs.3,15,058/- and the same was received by the complainant under protest on 08-03-2012 and even the said amount was paid after repeated requests by the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,97,632/- towards repairs and towing charges but whereas the opposite party has paid only a sum of Rs.3,15,058/- only and thereby caused deficiency of service by reducing an amount of Rs.1,82,574/-, which was actually spent by the complainant.
4. Counter filed by the opposite party stating that it is true that the complainant had insured his Toyota Fortuner vehicle bearing No.AP-02-AJ-9090 and the insurance coverage period is from 14-07-2011 to 13-07-2012. Further the said vehicle was involved in an accident on 17-11-2012 in which the vehicle was damaged and criminal case was also registered by Rapthadu P.S. The opposite party submits that the complainant has informed about the alleged accident to the opposite party for the first time on 19-11-2011 belatedly and there is a lapse of 2 days in informing about the accident, which is a violation of policy conditions by the complainant. Further the opposite party submitted that after the accident M/s Libra Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., was appointed for spot survey and survey report was submitted on 23-12-2011 assessing loss as Rs.3,15,097/- which is actual loss for which the complainant is entitled as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party submitted that as per surveyor’s report of estimation of damages, the opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.3,15,058/- to the complainant’s financiers Shriram City Finance Ltd., with the consent of the insured for the amount the complainant is entitled as per the policy terms and conditions.
5. The opposite party submits that the contention of the complainant that after spot survey the vehicle was towed to Viva Magna Wheelers Pvt. Ltd., for estimation and repairs and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards towing charges and the estimate of Rs.6,00,000/- was made by Viva Magna Wheelers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and the estimate was made by the repairer in the presence of the surveyor appointed by the opposite party and the estimation of damages was also informed to the opposite party are all denied by the opposite party. The opposite party submits that the alleged amount spent by the complainant for repairing the vehicle is denied by the opposite party and even other-wise the opposite party is not under contractual liability to indemnify the complainant for the said amount. Further the opposite party submits that the opposite party after considering the surveyor’s report and after deducting the amount of depreciation on certain rubber and glass parts, a sum of Rs.3,15,058/- was paid to the financiers Shriram City Finance Ltd., towards full and final settlement through cheque No.220474 dt.16-12-2012 with the consent of the complainant.
6. The opposite party further submits that as per the complainant the alleged amount of Rs.1,82,574/- which is due to the complainant is untenable and the claim of the complainant was settled as per the terms and conditions of the policy and there is no deficiency of service as the opposite party paid the loss towards damages after deducting depreciation from the estimated amount.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 & B2 documents.
9. Heard both sides.
10. POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is a registered owner of Toyota Fortuner bearing No.AP02-AJ-9090 has insured his vehicle with the opposite party by paying necessary premium to the opposite party and the period of insurance coverage is from 14-07-2011 to 13-07-2012. The counsel for the complainant submitted that subsequently the vehicle was involved in an accident on 17-11-2011 in which the vehicle was damaged. The counsel for the complainant submitted that after the accident the same was informed to the opposite party and a spot surveyor was appointed by the opposite party who made a spot survey. After spot survey the said vehicle was towed to Viva Magna Wheelers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore for estimation and repairs.
11. The counsel for the complainant submitted that Viva Magna Wheelers Pvt. Ltd., prepared an estimation for Rs.6,00,000/- and after the complainant sent the vehicle, which was repaired and a bill was prepared for a sum of Rs.4,90,132/-. The counsel for the complainant submitted that subsequently the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 24-11-2011 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 13-12-2011 through Bank and Rs.40,132/- by cash on 15-12-2011. Totally the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.4,97,632/- including towing charges and made a claim for the said amount.
12. The counsel for the complainant argued that though the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.4,97,632/-, the opposite party had paid only a sum of Rs.3,15,058/- only, which was received by the complainant under protest on 08-03-2012. The counsel for the complainant argued that though the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,97,632/- towards repair and towing charges, the opposite party had paid only a sum of Rs.3,15,058/- and thereby the complainant had to forego a sum of Rs.1,82,574/- more though the opposite party was under contractual liability to pay the said amount. The counsel for the complainant argued that though the vehicle was insured by the complainant with the opposite party, the opposite party has failed to compensate the loss which was spent by the complainant towards repair charges, thereby the opposite party has caused deficiency of service to the complainant for which they are under the liability to pay the amount spent by the complainant.
13. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no dispute with regard to policy or accident and further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the loss assessment was made by the surveyor, which is marked as Ex.B1 and as per the surveyors assessment the loss was assessed at Rs.4,30,695-42 and rubber and plastic parts was estimated Rs.3,04,207-86. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that as far as metal and other parts are concerned, there was no depreciation but whereas rubber and plastic parts there was depreciation of 50%. Hence loss on rubber and plastic was reduced from Rs.3,04,207-86 to Rs.1,52,103-93. Further the labour charges was estimated @ Rs.55,039.26 but it was assessed at Rs.44,596.50 and the glass parts wind shield which was assessed at Rs.19,095/- as per Ex.B1 estimate and the assessed amount was clearly mentioned and after depreciation on rubber and plastic parts the total loss was assessed at Rs.2,70,000.49 and labour charges was assessed at Rs.44,596-50, which comes to Rs.3,14,596-99. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the towing charges are fixed at Rs.1500/- though the complainant had claimed a sum of Rs.7,500/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy and hence arrived at Rs.3,15,096-99 and the same was paid to the complainant by way of cheque to the financiers of the complainant with his consent only. Hence the counsel for the opposite party argued that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
14. After hearing the arguments on both sides and perusing the documents filed by both sides though the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.4,97,632/- towards repair and towing charges, the assessment of the surveyor was taken into consideration which is marked as Ex.B1 and as seen from Ex.B1 document, the assessment of the surveyor and after deducting depreciation on rubber and plastic parts, the opposite party had arrived the figure at Rs.3,15,096-99. The said amount was paid to the financiers of the complainant with his consent as full and final settlement. The arguments of the complainant’s counsel is untenable because the complainant’s expectation that the entire amount what he spent is to be reimbursed by the opposite party is not correct and definitely the opposite party is not liable to pay the entire amount spent by the complainant. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant’s argument that the entire estimation amount has to be paid cannot be considered and it is a well settled law that the Insurance Company will deduct depreciation for certain parts. In the above circumstances, we consider that the opposite party has settled the claim as per the terms and conditions after deducting 50% depreciation on rubber and plastic parts. In view of the above observation, the opposite party has not caused any deficiency of service to the complainant, hence not liable to pay the balance amount to the complainant as claimed by him.
15. POINT NO.2 – In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 28th day of April, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Original Insurance Policy relating to vehicle of the complainant issued by the
Opposite party.
Ex.A2 - Estimation of damage relating to vehicle of the complainant issued by Viva
Magna Wheelers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore.
Ex.A3 - Receipt dt.24-11-2011 complainant issued by Viva Magna Wheelers Pvt. Ltd.,
Bangalore.
Ex.A4 - FIR in Cr.No.84/2011 of Rapthadu P.S.
Ex.A5 – Cash payment voucher dt.08-03-2012 issued by Shriram City Union Finance
Ltd., in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A6 - Letter dt.09-02-2012 sent by the complainant to the Zonal Manager, Shriram
General Insurance Co. Ltd., Tirupati.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE EPARTY
Ex.B1 – Photo copy of Motor Spot Surveyor Report relating to vehicle of the complainant.
Ex.B2 - Private Car Package Policy terms and conditions issued by the opposite party.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
