Regional office V/S Yathis - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2840

Yathis - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional office - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2840

Yathis						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Regional office						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2840/2008 COMPLAINANT Yathish, R/at, Kottige Palya, Magadi Main Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore. Advocate (K. Prasanna Shetty) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 01. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, No. 45/45, Leo Shopping Complex, Residency Cross Road, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. 02. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.10, #79 DWARAKA, IInd Floor, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Represented by its Divisional Manager. Advocate (H.B. Vijay Kumar) O R D E R 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.1,94,889/- and pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02-AB-7372. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 17.01.2007 to 16.01.2008. On 15.12.2007 the said vehicle met with an accident near Bachanahalli in the limits of Malavalli Rural Police Station. Immediately a complaint was lodged to the Police and an intimation was sent to the OP. OP deputed its surveyor, he inspected the damaged vehicle and prepared the report. Thereafter also inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to settle the claim. Ultimately complainant got issued the legal notice on 20.10.2008. Again there was no response. Hence 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. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant failed to furnish the correct information with regard to the death of the cleaner. The so called repair bills are not produced so as to consider the claim. OP has to verify the veracity and authenticity of the expenses to be incurred by the complainant for repairing the said vehicle which was damaged in the accident. In spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the OP to produce the necessary bills and documents, complainant has not responded for the same. If the vehicle is kept in the garage without repairs it is at the fault of the complainant, for that OP cannot be blamed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 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. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 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: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02-AB-7372. It is also not at dispute that OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 17.01.2007 to 16.01.2008. It is contended by the complainant that the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.12.2007 near Bachanahalli of Malavalli Rural Police Station and the concerned Police have registered the case. The date, time, place of accident is not disputed by the OP. In the said accident the vehicle suffered severe damages. 7. It is contended by the complainant that he made claim to OP. In pursuance of the same OP appointed the Surveyor. He inspected the vehicle and prepared the report. The Surveyor report is also produced. With all that inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to settle the claim. OP has not objected for the said Surveyor report. For want of the financial assistance and due to delay in settling of the claim, complainant is unable to meet out the expenses to be incurred for the repairs of the vehicle, that is why the said vehicle is kept lying in the garage. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. 8. As against this OP has taken up a strange defence contending that complainant has not furnished the details about the death of the cleaner and failed to produce the repair original bills towards repairs. When the vehicle is not repaired for want of money, the claim of OP appears to be unjust and improper. Keeping the said claim without settling it evenafter the receipt of the Surveyors report speaks loudly about the deficiency in service. 9. The approach of the OP does not appears to be as fair and honest. There is no proper and just application of mind in considering the claim. Having taken note of the report given by the Surveyor, which is not at dispute, the claim made by the complainant appears to be just and proper. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant which finds full support from the contents of the undisputed documents. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. Under such circumstances complainant deserves the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the insurance claim for Rs.1,94,889/- as per the survey report and pay the same to the complainant within 4 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 settle the said claim as ordered complainant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.1,94,889/- from the date of accident till realization and also a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. (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.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2840/2008 COMPLAINANT Yathish, R/at, Kottige Palya, Magadi Main Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore. Advocate (K. Prasanna Shetty) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 01. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, No. 45/45, Leo Shopping Complex, Residency Cross Road, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. 02. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.10, #79 DWARAKA, IInd Floor, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Represented by its Divisional Manager. Advocate (H.B. Vijay Kumar) O R D E R 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.1,94,889/- and pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02-AB-7372. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 17.01.2007 to 16.01.2008. On 15.12.2007 the said vehicle met with an accident near Bachanahalli in the limits of Malavalli Rural Police Station. Immediately a complaint was lodged to the Police and an intimation was sent to the OP. OP deputed its surveyor, he inspected the damaged vehicle and prepared the report. Thereafter also inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to settle the claim. Ultimately complainant got issued the legal notice on 20.10.2008. Again there was no response. Hence 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. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant failed to furnish the correct information with regard to the death of the cleaner. The so called repair bills are not produced so as to consider the claim. OP has to verify the veracity and authenticity of the expenses to be incurred by the complainant for repairing the said vehicle which was damaged in the accident. In spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the OP to produce the necessary bills and documents, complainant has not responded for the same. If the vehicle is kept in the garage without repairs it is at the fault of the complainant, for that OP cannot be blamed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 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. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 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: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02-AB-7372. It is also not at dispute that OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 17.01.2007 to 16.01.2008. It is contended by the complainant that the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.12.2007 near Bachanahalli of Malavalli Rural Police Station and the concerned Police have registered the case. The date, time, place of accident is not disputed by the OP. In the said accident the vehicle suffered severe damages. 7. It is contended by the complainant that he made claim to OP. In pursuance of the same OP appointed the Surveyor. He inspected the vehicle and prepared the report. The Surveyor report is also produced. With all that inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to settle the claim. OP has not objected for the said Surveyor report. For want of the financial assistance and due to delay in settling of the claim, complainant is unable to meet out the expenses to be incurred for the repairs of the vehicle, that is why the said vehicle is kept lying in the garage. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. 8. As against this OP has taken up a strange defence contending that complainant has not furnished the details about the death of the cleaner and failed to produce the repair original bills towards repairs. When the vehicle is not repaired for want of money, the claim of OP appears to be unjust and improper. Keeping the said claim without settling it evenafter the receipt of the Surveyors report speaks loudly about the deficiency in service. 9. The approach of the OP does not appears to be as fair and honest. There is no proper and just application of mind in considering the claim. Having taken note of the report given by the Surveyor, which is not at dispute, the claim made by the complainant appears to be just and proper. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant which finds full support from the contents of the undisputed documents. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. Under such circumstances complainant deserves the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the insurance claim for Rs.1,94,889/- as per the survey report and pay the same to the complainant within 4 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 settle the said claim as ordered complainant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.1,94,889/- from the date of accident till realization and also a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. (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.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.