<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 26th 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.2839/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt.Laxmi Bai,W/o Yallappa,R/at, # 62, Wilson Garden,Hombegowda 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.Vijayakumar<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.94,598/- 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-01-B-5187. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 08.11.2006 to 07.11.2007. On 23.09.2007 the said vehicle met with a road traffic accident near Tavarekere and in the said accident severe damages were caused to the vehicle. The Mico Layout, Police station registered a case at crime No.179/2007. Complainant intimated the OP about the accident and damages caused to the vehicle. OP appointed the surveyor. Surveyor inspected the said vehicle, prepared the report. Then complainant submitted the claim petition along with the connected documents. OP failed to settle the said claim in time. Then complainant caused the legal notice on 18.10.2008, again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant failed to produce the relevant documents for the consideration nor he subjected the vehicle for the inspection of the OP. There is no proof that complainant has actually spent that much of amount towards the repairs of the said vehicle. Original bills are not produced. The claim of the complainant is highly imaginary. If the complainant has left the said vehicle for repairs at garage thereby lost her earning, it is for the complainant to bear such loss as the said vehicle is not inspected by OP and estimation is not approved by the OP. Complainant has taken risk in leaving the vehicle for repairs. 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. 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 bearing No.KA-01-B-5187 and OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle, which was valid from 08.11.2006 to 07.11.2007. According to the complainant the said vehicle met with an accident on 23.09.2007 and Traffic Police of Mico Layout Station registered the case at crime No.179/2007. FIR copy is produced. In the said accident severe damages were caused to the vehicle. Of course OP has not disputed the fact of the said accident including the date, time and the place.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that she intimated OP about the accident, then the OP surveyor came to the spot and examined the vehicle and gave his report. She made a claim to OP by producing all the necessary documents but OP failed to settle the claim. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The said vehicle is a source to income to her it is left idle at the garage for want of repairs. Under such circumstances she felt fault with the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. It finds support from the contents of the above said undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. 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 their responsibility. Complainant has produced the surveyor report. OP has not disputed the same but still failed to settle the claim. Here we find the deficiency in service. The approach of the OP in not treating the said claim within a reasonable time must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Complainant is unable to get repaired the vehicle for want of financial assistance. As the OP has not settled the claim and repaid the money she is unable to earn her livelihood by running the said vehicle.<br /> <br /> 9. We have closely scrutinized both oral and documentary evidence and satisfied that the complainant is able to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such complainant is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the claim as per the surveyors report dated 31.03.2008 for Rs.94,598/- with in four weeks from the date of communication of this order. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. If OP fails to pay the said amount as ordered in time then complainant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of causing of legal notice till realization along with a 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 26th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />