BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.80/2009 Order dated this the 11th day of September 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.K.Lingegowda Papanna S/o Dodda Hunnegowda, Zilla Panchayat Member, Chandupura, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.Chikkamari., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., V.V.Road, Mandya. (By Sri.S.Sudarshan., Advocate) Date of complaint 06.07.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 22.07.2009 Date of order 11.09.2009 Total Period 1 Month 19 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party claiming Rs.12,877/- with interest at 10% p.a. and compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs. 2. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has obtained the insurance policy from the Opposite party for his car bearing No.K.A-11, M.1548. The said car met with an accident and it was damaged and the said matter was informed to the Opposite party and submitted claim with estimate and then bill for Rs.23,027/- was submitted on 11.03.2009. The Opposite party, when delayed the settlement, he got issued legal notice dated 05.05.2009 and then Opposite party has paid Rs.10,150/- on 14.05.2009. The Complainant received the amount protesting the part payment of the expenditure and then got issued legal notice dated 01.06.2009 and Opposite party sent reply stating that on the basis of surveyor report, the amount was paid. Though, the Complainant has got repaired his car as per the bill for Rs.23,027/- issued by Nandi Tayota Company, the Opposite party has failed to pay the amount, but sent Rs.10,150/- through cheque and in spite of legal notice they have not paid the remaining amount nor sent any reply. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting the insurance of the car of the Complainant and the accident. On receipt of the claim form and other necessary documents, the Opposite party appointed a Surveyor to assess the actual damage caused to the insured vehicle and after due assessment of the damages and loss, the surveyor submitted report on 20.03.2009 for Rs.10,150/- after deducting the inadmissible amounts. The Opposite party informed the Complainant vide letter dated 14.05.2009 that the claim has been settled for Rs.10,150/- and further, along with the said letter a stamped voucher was also sent to the Complainant requesting him to return the said voucher after executing his signature expressing his consent. Thereafter, the Opposite party sent the cheque for Rs.10,150/-. The Complainant has received the cheque without any objection or protest. As such, the Complainant is estopped the claiming more amount than the settled one. The surveyor has correctly assessed the damages. The Opposite party is not liable to pay any amount claimed and the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trial, the Complainant is examined and has produced Ex.C.1 to C.5. The Opposite party and Surveyor are examined and Ex.R.1 and R.13 are produced. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the settlement of insurance claim by the Opposite party is not justified? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the amount claimed? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the Complainant is the owner of Innova Car bearing No.K.A-11, M.1548 andn the said vehicle was insured with the Opposite party and when the policy was in force, the car met with an accident and Complainant informed the same by giving letter Ex.R.2 and submitted the quotation as per Ex.R.13 for Rs.27,420/-. The Complainant has also submitted the claim application as per Ex.R.12 and the Opposite party appointed a Surveyor R.W.2 and R.W.2 inspected the vehicle parked in Nandi Tayota Show Room, Mysore and inspected the vehicle making 2 or 3 visits and also obtained the photos and submitted the report Ex.R.8, assessing the loss at Rs.10,150/-. The Complainant also gave a letter, claiming the amount on 20.03.2009 as per Ex.R.1 complaining the damages to the vehicle. Since, there was delay, the Complainant got issued legal notice as per Ex.R.4 on 05.05.2009 and the Opposite party sent reply Ex.R.3 on 14.05.2009 stating that they have settled the accident claim for Rs.10,150/- and sent the lose voucher to the insured to get signature to issue the cheque. On 14.05.2009 itself, the Opposite party sent letter Ex.R.7 to the Complainant stating that they have settled the claim for Rs.10,150/- and to send back the enclosed voucher duly stamped and signed at the earliest to release the cheque. The Complainant has furnished the signed voucher Ex.R.6 on 25.05.2009 and then the Opposite party has sent cheque for Rs.10,150/- by post as per the letter Ex.R.5 in payment of full and final settlement of the claim. The Complainant received the cheque, encashed it and then got issued a legal notice Ex.R.2 on 01.06.2009 complaining that though has spent more than Rs.24,000/-, only Rs.10,500/- is sent without disclosing on what basis for settled. The Opposite party has sent reply as per Ex.R.1 on 11.06.2009, stating that they have settled the claim on the basis of surveyor assessment for Rs.10,150/-, allowing the cost of replacement of parts for the damaged portion and labour charges as per the policy condition. Now, the Complainant has come up with this complaint claiming Rs.12,877/- on the ground, the cost of repair is Rs.23,027/- and only Rs.10,150/- is paid and it is contrary to the terms of the policy. 9. As per the evidence of the Surveyor and the Opposite party and surveyor report Ex.R.8 only rear portion of the car was damaged and details of replacement of parts and labour charges is mentioned by the Surveyor. But, according to the Complainant, the damages were caused in the accident to both front and rear portion of the car, but it is very difficult to believe the said version, because at the earliest point of time in Ex.R.2, the Complainant has specifically stated the motor bike dashed against the rear side of the car when it was stopped near the signal point at Mysore. But, on 20.03.2009, the Complainant gave a petition Ex.R.1 stating that in the accident, the front and back side were damaged. Admittedly, in the presence of the Complainant and even after repairs, the surveyor has inspected the car at guarage and assessed the damages and loss and then submitted report Ex.R.8. According to the surveyor report, only rear side bumper was damaged and he assessed the damages at Rs.9,044/- for labour charges and spare parts at Rs.4,528/- and allowed 50% deduction and assessed loss at Rs.2,264/- totally giving other deduction of policy excess and salvage, net loss is shown as Rs.10,150/-. Of course, the Complainant has produced the bill as per Ex.C.4 and according to this, the bill is for Rs.23,027/-, but in this bill, we find the repairs of the front bumper and also labour charges, but it is not at all noticed by the surveyor and that damage and loss is not shown in the surveyor report. The surveyors report with regard to the damages cannot be disbelieved, because the Complainant himself has stated in his first letter that only rear portion was damaged, but later, after the inspection by the surveyor, he submitted the application Ex.R.1 stating that car was damaged both in rear side and back side. Why there is discrepancy is not explained. Even, the photos taken by the surveyor do not reveal any damage to the front portion. In fact, in the estimate, the show room has shown painting on FT both side mirror, but the surveyor has dis-allowed and also replacement front side bumper and painting. No reasons are established to reject the surveyors assessment of loss. 10. Further, the Complainant is a Member of Zilla Panchayath and studied up to S.S.L.C. and when the Opposite party sent a letter Ex.R.7 stating that they have settled the claim for Rs.10,150/- and to send back the enclosed voucher duly stamped and signed, the Complainant has admittedly submitted that voucher duly stamped and signed and as admitted that he has read the contents of voucher and thereafter, the Opposite party has sent the cheque to the Complainant and Complainant has received the cheque for Rs.10,150/- and got encashed. As admitted that he did not give any letter to the Opposite party disputing the correctness of the cheque amount expressing protest. There is no explanation by the Complainant as to why he submitted the voucher Ex.R.6 wherein it is clearly stated that he has agreed to accept in full satisfaction and discharge of the claim. The explanation in evidence that as per say of Surveyor, that another cheque would he sent, he signed the discharge voucher, cannot be believed, because no such fact was brought to notice of Opposite party by sending letter expressing protest. So, when he has received the cheque amount in full satisfaction and discharge of the claim, now it is not open to the Complainant to claim that the Opposite party has not settled the claim properly and to claim the insurance amount on the basis of the bill which is contrary with the surveyor report. Prima-facie as per rules, value has to be given to the surveyors report in assessing the damages, the party opposing the same should establish the reasons to discard the surveyor assessment and no such evidence and reasons are forthcoming and established to reject the surveyor report and to accept the bill issued by the Nandi Toyota Show Room. Under these circumstances, it is established that the Opposite party has properly settled the claim for Rs.10,150/- on the basis of the surveyor report and the Complainant has accepted the same without any protest and hence, we hold that the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. 11. Though, the Complainant has sought for Rs.12,877/- towards the balance of bill amount with compensation, but when the Complainant himself, he has executed the voucher for Rs.10,150/- towards full and final satisfaction of the claim amount with free consent is estopped from claiming the amount. Therefore, the complaint is not entitled to the amount claimed or compensation. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 11th day of September 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
