COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 21st FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2841/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Sardar Khan,S/o Jasmal Khan,R/at # 35, Hosahalli Main Road,Padmanabha Nagar,Bangalore.Advocate – Sri.K.Prasanna ShettyV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,Regional Office,No.45/45, Leo Shopping Complex,Residency Cross Road,M.G Road,Bangalore – 560 001.2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office No.10,# 79, ‘DWARAKA’ 2nd Floor,Uttamar Gandhi Salai,Chennai.Represented by itsDivisional Manager.Advocate – Sri.H.B.Vijaykumar<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim for Rs.1,03,360/- and pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the R.C owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-B-2343. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was in force from 02.04.2007 to 01.04.2008. The said vehicle met with an accident on 01.02.2008 near Lakkundi on NH-63 near Gadag Rural Police Station. A case was registered by the concerned Police. Then complainant made a claim to OP with respect to the damages caused to the said vehicle in the accident. OP deputed the surveyor. Surveyor inspected the vehicle and prepared the report. But thereafter also OP failed to settle the said claim in spite of causing legal notice by the complainant on 18.10.2008. Under such circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the surveyor has assessed loss and damages only to the tune of Rs.55,445/-. In order to settle the claim complainant is required to produce the necessary documents but he failed to produce the same in spite of the demand and requests made by the OP. For want of co-operation and assistance from the complainant, OP is unable to settle the claim. The present claim is pre-mature. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C owner of the vehicle KA-05-B-2343 and OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle, which was in force from 02.04.2007 to 01.04.2008. It is contended by the complainant that the said vehicle met with an accident on 01.02.2008 thereby severe damages were caused to the vehicle. On the perusal of the defence set out by the OP there is no dispute with regard to date, time and place of accident of the vehicle. It is further contended by the complainant that after the accident he intimated the OP and sent the claim, it was not considered. OP deputed the surveyor to inspect the vehicle. Surveyor after examining the vehicle gave his extensive report. With all that OP failed to settle the said claim. Hence complainant caused the legal notice on 18.10.2008. Copy of the legal notice, surveyors report are produced.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It finds support from the contents of the undisputed documents. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk the responsibility and obligation. Though complainant has produced all the necessary documents what made the OP to keep the said claim pending for all these months is not known. It would have been more fair on the part of the OP at least to settle the claim as per the surveyors report, which is not disputed by the complainant. That step is not taken. The other defence of the OP that complainant failed to file certain documents for consideration appears to be an eye wash. Though the said accident was occurred within insurance coverage period, unfortunately OP failed to settle the claim within reasonable time. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. Of course complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and settlement of the claim for Rs.1,03,360/- may be an estimate, for this claim basically there is no proof and support. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, when the surveyors report is not disputed or denied by the litigating parties justice will be met by directing the OP to settle the claim as per the surveyors report. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the claim for Rs.55,445/- and pay the same to the complainant within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Failing in which complainant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% p.a on Rs.55,445/- from the date of causing of legal notice till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />