| This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Mallikarjuna against Opponents (1) National Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai and (2) Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is the owner and R.C. Holder of jeep bearing Registration No.AP-25/F-7591 which was purchased by availing bank loan for his livelihood. The said vehicle was insured with Respondent with effect from 12-05-04 to 11-05-05 under policy No. 50602/31/04/6104081. On 09-11-04 at about 3-30 AM while the said jeep was proceeding towards Makthal by carrying Milk pockets to distribute at Narayanapet- Makthalpet and other various places at that time a lorry came from opposite direction Hyderabad side with great speed & in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the jeep of the complainant as a result of which the jeep fell on the side of the road causing damages to its main part, front body, hand set, chassis, engine, steering, top body, bumper, framed front left etc., and also to 30 milk pockets. After the incident the Makthal police have registered a case against the driver of the lorry in Crime No. 126/04 and after investigation they have filed charge sheet against the driver of the said lorry. After the accident the complainant informed the Opponents and got repaired his vehicle with Mahaveer Automobiles by spending more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and as per the advise of the Opponents he submitted claim forms along with accident papers and original bills. The Opponents also appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report to the Opponents. In-spite of several personal approach and requests the Opponents have not paid any damages to the complainant and went on postponing the matter and thereby complainant sustained heavy monitory loss and mental agony and so the complainant got issued legal notice through his counsel even then the Opponents neither paid the damages nor replied to his legal notice. The complainant has purchased the said jeep for his livelihood and he use to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month from the jeep. He got repaired the vehicle by spending Rs. 1,00,000/- and so he could not pay the loan installments of the jeep to the bank who have seized the jeep and sold it on Bid sale and thereby Opponents made his life miserable and so the complainant has sought for a total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- as detailed in para-8 of the complaint and has sought for awarding Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization along with cost of litigation. 2. In response to service of notice OP.No-2 appeared through counsel. OP.No-1 remained absent when called out and so he has been placed Ex-parte. In the written statement OP.No-2 has contended that the complaint is vague without any particulars of information. After thorough enquiry in the matter, the voucher was sent to the complainant for Rs. 21,230/- on 06-06-06 and that voucher is not returned to the Opponent duly discharged by the complainant. That being so the payment cannot be made by Opponent. So it is only a delay caused due to non-compliance by the complainant in discharging the voucher sent to him. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Opponent. The claim filed by the complainant with regard to the relief claimed are all untenable, excessive and exorbitant so the complaint is fit to be dismissed. Hence for all these reasons the OP.No-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn affidavit as evidence, reiterating the averments of complaint. In rebuttal the Branch manager of OP.No-2 has filed his sworn affidavit as evidence reiterating the contents of written version. On behalf of complainant (9) documents at Ex.P.1 to P-9 were got marked. In rebuttal four documents at Ex.R-1 to R-4 were got marked for OP.No-2. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Ops, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident causing certain damages to the vehicle and that the insurance of the vehicle was in-force at the time of accident. The only contention between the parties is that according to the complainant after the accident as per the advice of the Ops he got repaired his vehicle by incurring expenditure of more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and submitted claim forms along with original bills and accident papers but the Respondent Insurance Company did not indemnify the damages and inspite of service of legal notice they failed to comply to the same. But according to the Opponent, after the receipt of claim papers in the light of survey report they sent voucher for Rs. 21,230/- on 06-06-06 but the complainant did not return the vouchers duly discharged so payment was not made and this delay was due to non-compliance by the complainant in discharging the vouchers so there is no deficiency of service by the Opponents. The complainant has produced Xerox copy of bills at Ex.P-6 (1) to P-6 (7). The Opponents have produced Calculation Sheet of Motor Claims at Ex.R-2 and the Survey Report at Ex.R-3. As seen in the complaint and affidavit-evidence, the complainant has admitted that a surveyor was appointed by the Opponent Company who has submitted his report. This Survey Report is at Ex.R-3. A close perusal of which goes to show the estimated amount and assessed amount under the head Labour Charges and spare parts purchased for replacement. It shows the assessed net loss at Rs. 25,000/-. It also shows that the spare parts rates shown are approximate and are from local market value and the items crossed in the Estimate have been dis-allowed in the assessment. This can be seen from the Calculation Sheet at Ex.R-2 showing the net assessment at Rs. 21,230/- after deducting salvage. A perusal of bills at Ex.P-6 (1) to P-6 (7) and Calculation Sheet at Ex.R-2 shows the Surveyor while assessing the loss has taken into account the bills and he has dis-allowed the excess amount shown in the bills. The survey report however shows the net loss assessed at Rs. 25,000/- as against Rs. 21,230/- as shown in the Calculation Sheet at Ex.R-2. Under these circumstances we are of the opinion to accept the survey report assessing the loss at Rs. 25,000/- which has been arrived by verifying the vouchers and the actual price of the spare parts submitted by the complainant. The Opponents have not produced any piece of evidence to show the service of voucher for Rs. 21,230/- on complainant so as to hold the non-compliance by the complainant. In the absence of the same the complainant cannot be blamed for non-compliance of the same. So we hold deficiency in service by Opponents and hence Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 7. The claim of the complainant appears to be exorbitant as could be seen from the survey report. Hence we hold that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 25,000/- being the loss assessed by the surveyor. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Opponents Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 25,000/- being the net loss assessed by the surveyor along with a global compensation of Rs. 5,000/- including cost of litigation The Opponents shall comply this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 15-06-07) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Vishwanath Yekkelli, I/c. Member, District Forum-Raichur |
---|
|
---|
|