BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1779/2007 against C.C. 640/2007, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad

Between:

G. Gopala Krishna Murthy

S/o. Late Venkateswarlu

Additional District Judge

R/o. 6-1-136/5/A

Balaram Compound

Padmaraonagar

Secunderabad. *** Appellant/

Complainant. And

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Mozamzahi Market Branch

Rep. by its Divisional Manager

Hyderabad. *** Respondent/

Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V. S. Raju

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. P. Phalguna Rao.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THIS THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)

***

1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he insured his Maruthi van with the respondent insurance company from 30. 4. 2004 to 29. 4. 2005 While so, on 22. 4. 2005 at about 10.30 a.m. the vehicle met with accident while proceeding from Prakashnagar flyover due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tayota Qualis coming in opposite direction due to which the vehicle was badly damaged. On a report the police registered a petty case no. 565 u/s 184 of M.V. Act against the driver of Toyota quails. Immediately he intimated the same to the insurance company, got it repaired by incurring Rs. 36,215/-, and submitted the bills etc. He had spent about Rs. 20,000/- for non- availability of vehicle to go to the hospital for treatment of her wife. He filed MVOP. No. 2372/2005 on the file of XII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and subsequently he has withdrawn his case against insurance company as the claim was not against third party. However, the case was pending against the owner of the vehicle Tayota Qualis. The insurance company settled the claim for Rs. 11,750/- which he did not accept and therefore he filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 36,215/- for the amount spent towards repairs, Rs. 20,000/- towards the amount spent for engaging a private vehicle during its repairs and damages of Rs. 10,000/- in all Rs. 66,215/-.

3) The insurance company resisted the case. While admitting issuance of policy it alleged that immediately on receipt of intimation it has appointed a surveyor Sri M. Shyam Kishroe to estimate the loss of damage. After taking depreciation of used parts he assessed the loss at Rs. 11,784/- The complainant did not agree to settle for the said amount. The complainant was not entitled to the entire cost of the new parts for replacement of old parts, which are used for more than five years. The surveyor deducted depreciation @ 40% as per norms. The complainant was not entitled to Rs. 20,000/- for engaging a private vehicle and damages of Rs. 10,000/-. There was no delay on their part in settling the claim and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A8 marked while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Divisional Manager and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.

5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the vehicle was five years old and as per the terms and conditions of the policy he would not be entitled to the value of new parts. Therefore the insurance company was right in releasing an amount of Rs. 11,750/-. As there was no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company it dismissed the complaint.

6) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the insurance company arbitrarily deducted the depreciation as against all the bills submitted for Rs. 36,215/-. At any rate it could have allowed amount, which was submitted to the insurance company.

7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8) It is an undisputed fact that the vehicle which was insured met with accident on 22. 4. 2005 and was damaged during the subsistence of the insurance policy vide Ex. A1 certificate issued by the police department. Sri K. Shyam Kishore, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss. The insured had produced the estimate for Rs. 24,806/- for repairs and replacement of part from Four Stroke Motors etc. The surveyor after considering the estimate depreciation ranging between 40% and 50% on various parts as the vehicle was seven years old. He has computed the same at Rs. 8,609/-. In regard to labour charges for the estimate given by him at Rs. 9,290/-, he reduced it to Rs. 4,075/-. He deducted Rs. 400/- towards salvage. Again he deducted an amount of Rs. 500/- towards insurance excesses and arrived at Rs. 11,784/-. When the said amount was tendered, the complainant protested stating that depreciation on spare parts and deduction towards labour were unfair and he was entitled to full amount claimed by him. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was seven years old and necessarily depreciation had to be given and the surveyor having assessed at 40% being more than five years old it cannot be found fault with. The labour charges could not have been more than the value of the spare parts. The surveyor had assessed the labour charges at Rs. 4,075/- half of the amount which he had spent towards purchase of spare parts which we feel reasonable and modest. Though he mentioned salvage value at Rs. 400/-

however he further deducted Rs. 500/- without any reason. Already sufficient depreciation was granted. He has slashed the rates paid towards labour charges. This deduction of Rs. 500/- cannot be upheld. Therefore the complainant is entitled to Rs. 12,284/- assessed by the surveyor. The complainant’s claim in its entirety cannot be acceded to. The Dist. Forum undoubtedly went wrong in not awarding even the admitted amount which the insurance company intended to pay.

9) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently, the complaint is allowed in part directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 12, 284/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint viz., 21.7.2007 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Since we are awarding interest, we are not inclined to grant any compensation. Time for compliance four weeks.

1) _______________________________

PRESIDENT

2) ________________________________

MEMBER

Dt. 01. 04. 2010. .

*pnr