BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.449 OF AGAINST C.C.NO.264 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA
Between:
Reliance General Insurance
4th Floor, Near Hotel
Appellant/opposite party
Nandru
Respondents/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/s Counsel for the Respondent M/s
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri
***
1. The insurance company is the appellant. The respondent filed complaint seeking for indemnification to the extent of `64,150/- and compensation and costs.
2. The respondent obtained insurance policy bearing No.1803792339005274 for the period from 24.8.2009 to 23.8.2010 for his auto bearing NO.AP16TV0052 and the auto met with an accident on 13.8.2010 whereon the respondent lodged complaint with the police The respondent contended that on it being intimated, the appellant insurance company deputed surveyor
3. The appellant was proceeded 4. The respondent has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A13.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded an amount of `64,150/- with interest and costs, on the premise that the respondent established that he had got carried out the repairs to the auto and incurred the amount to the tune of `64,150/-.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party insurance company filed appal contending that the District Forum failed to see the ground of repudiation that the vehicle was dismantled before inspection which is in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and whereby the appellant lost opportunity to inspect and assess the loss. It is contended that the bills and receipts filed by the respondents are fabricated documents and that Sri `64,150/-.
7. The counsel for the respondent has filed written submissions.
8. The point for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to the amount `64,150/-?
9. The ownership of the of the auto bearing No. AP 16 TV 0052 and its insurance coverage under the insurance policy issued by the appellant- insurance company for the period commencing from 24.8.2009 till 23.8.2010 as also the vehicle meeting with an accident on 13.8.2010 within the period of validity of the insurance have not been disputed. The respondent has contended that the appellant insurance company deputed surveyor the appellant submits that it deputed the surveyor
10. The respondents in his affidavit has stated that he got repaired the vehicle by `63,770/-. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant insurance company has filed the surveyor report submitted by The appellant repudiated the claim on 30.10.2010 informing the respondent that its surveyor The repudiation letter was filed by the respondent before the District Forum. The respondent had not raised any objection as to the name of the surveyor when he had received the repudiation letter nor did he issue any notice to the appellant- insurance company after receipt of the repudiation letter or prior to the date of filing the As such the contention of the respondent that surveyor other than
11. The respondent claimed an amount of `64,770/- basing on the quotation dated 30.10.2010 and bills dated 15.9.2010 and 16.9.2010 as also the bill dated 17.9.2010. These are only bills and not cash receipts. The respondent dismantled the vehicle before inspection of the same was made by the surveyor. The surveyor was not given opportunity to assess the loss or damage caused to the parts of the vehicle. The dismantling of the vehicle, even before inspection made by the is in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy. It is very much doubtful as to the amount of `64,770/- claimed by the respondent on the premise that the auto had got damaged requiring replacement of the spare parts worth the amount claimed in absence of cash bills and inspection not being made before the vehicle was dismantled. The respondent cannot claim the amount until he proves that the parts required to be replaced are damaged in the accident.
12. The surveyor had assessed the amount to the tune of `6,700/- excluding the depreciation and salvage. The surveyor had assessed the amount by deducting depreciated costs of `2,527/-. He had referred to Fork Bent Repair, re-fixing of damaged parts, repairing of chassis and roof of the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.4,750/- and for replacement of assembly at `2,800/-. The surveyor had not given any reason on what basis he had assessed the amount at `2,700/- as according to him the vehicle was dismantled even before the loss was assessed. Equally, the respondent has not been fair enough to state the exact amount incurred by him for replacement of the parts of the vehicle damaged in the accident. In the circumstances, we have considered the depreciated costs of `2,527.50 which was deducted by the surveyor can be awarded in addition the amount arrived at by the surveyor, `6,700/-. Thus, the amount the respondent entitled to comes to Rs.9227.50 rounded of `9,300/-.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. The opposite party directed to pay an amount of Rs.9,300/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till payment together with costs of `2,000/-. The parties shall bear their own costs in the appeal.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.08.11.2012
KMK*
