Date of Filing: 01.10.2011
Date of Order: 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th DAY OF MARCH -2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, BSc., B.L, President
Smt. K.G. Shantala, Member
Sri. T. Nagaraja, Member
C.C. NO.07/2011
Kaleem Ulla Khan,
S/o. Abdulla Khan,
Aged About 50 years,
R/o. Opp. Niligiri Weigh Bridge,
Kolar Road, Bangarpet.
(Rep. by Sri.Ganesh.N., Advocate) …COMPLAINANT.,
-V/s-
(1) Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Divisional Office No.10,
No.79, Uttumar Gandhi Salai,
Nungam Bakkam High Road,
Cheenai-600 034.
(2) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, 40,
Shopping Complex, Richmond Road,
Bangalore.
(Rep. by Sri.B.Kumar, Advocate) …..OPPOSITE PARTIES.
ORDER
BY SRI. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.80,000/-, are necessary :-
The complainant has insured his vehicle bearing No.KA-08-B-4830 with the opposite party under policy No.412000/31/2007/17828 and was valid between 17.12.2006 to 16.12.2007. The said vehicle met with an accident on 05.12.2007 and the vehicle damaged very badly. A case was registered in the jurisdictional police in crime No.245/2007. As per the oral instructions from the opposite party No.1 to do replacement of damaged parts the quotation and bills may be submitted to their office later. The complainant took the vehicle to the “Millennium auto Coach Builders and purchased spare parts from Mougal Motors Auto Mobiles by paying Rs.80,000/-. The above said original bills are received by the opposite party No.1. As nothing was heard the complainant issued a notice to the opposite parties on 21.12.2009 and complaint is filed.
2. In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-
The insurance is admitted. On 21.12.2009 the complainant issued notice to the opposite party wherein it has been stated that the vehicle has sustained damages to an extent of Rs.80,000/-. What kind of replacement of the spare parts is also not stated in the said notice. A misrepresentation is made stating that the original bills have been received by the opposite parties which is false. On 18.02.2010 the opposite party issued a reply stating that in spite of 15 days notice on 25.11.2008 requesting the complainant to submit the vehicle bills and submits the original labour receipt which is mandatory to the said claim, the complainant has not responded. The opposite party has closed the claim as no claim. On 21.01.2010 the complainant issued another notice making false allegation and claiming Rs.43,804/- towards the vehicle damage Rs.22,000/- as compensation, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony. There is no deficiency in service. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, the parties had filed their respective affidavits and documents and the complainant had filed the written arguments. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B):- As per the detailed order
for the following:-
REASONS
Point (A) & (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents and written arguments on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question, had insured the said vehicle with the opposite party. It is also seen that alleging rash and negligent driving by the driver and damage to the cabin only on 05.12.2007 the complainant had lodged a complaint with the police for an offence Under Section 279 I.P.C. only. What has happened to that case is not stated. The complainant never stated on what date he intimated the accident to the opposite party or on what date he laid the claim with the opposite party. The complainant has only issued notices to the opposite party on 21.12.2009 long after two years after the alleged accident. The complainant never produced any documents to show when he has intimated the accident to the opposite party. If at all any incident was intimated to the opposite party the surveyor of the opposite party would have verified the accident spot and the vehicle he would have assessed the damages that opportunity has not been given.
7. Further when he has shifted the vehicle to the Millennium Garage is not stated by the complainant. If at all the vehicle had been taken to the Millennium Auto Coard Builders naturally the complainant would have informed the opposite party and the opposite party would have sent its surveyor to verify the parts, even that has not been done by the complainant. Only he has issued notices.
8. In any event according to the complaint given to the police the lorry has dashed against the compound and cabin was damaged, but the copies that has been produced is for something else. How? There is no answer. The opposite party denies the whole thing. There is no document to show that the complainant has submitted the original bills to the opposite party on any particular date. There is no document to show that the complainant has laid the claim with the opposite party on any particular day. The opposite party denies for having received any original bills. Even the proprietor of Millennium Auto Coard Builders have not filed any affidavit nor the Mougal Motors Auto Mobiles have filed any affidavit stating that they have sold the spares and they have repaired the vehicle in question. Only copies of these documents cannot be taken as gospel truth. Hence it is impossible to say that any damage has been caused to the complainant’s vehicle and it met with an accident. Even there is no copy of the mahazar that has been drawn by the police is produced If at all the vehicle sustained any serious damage the complainant would have produced the copies of the mahazar, that has not been done. This clearly goes to show only for the purpose of claiming money these receipts of Millennium Auto Coard Builders and Mougal Motors Auto Mobiles have been concocted as rightly contended.
9. Further the complainant is claiming Rs.80,000/-. According to the copies of the bills that has been produced by Millennium Auto Coard Builders and Mougal Motors Auto Mobiles the total amount comes to Rs.82,867/-. How? There is no answer. Hence under these circumstances it is clearly establishes that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as rightly contended. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as Under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of MARCH 2012)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
