Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/205/2010

Sri M.N. Sathish S/o Sri Nataraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

H.V. Devaraju

28 Jul 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/205/2010
 
1. Sri M.N. Sathish S/o Sri Nataraj
455/1, Malurpatna Village, Kudalur Post, Mallur Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara Dist.
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

 Date of Filing : 30.01.2010
 Date of Order : 28.07.2011
 
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
 
Dated 28th JULY 2011
 
PRESENT
 
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL)               ….       President
 
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B.                                  ….       Member
 
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL)     ….       Member
 
COMPLAINT NO. 205 / 2010
Sri. M.N. Sathish,
S/o. Sri. Nataraj,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at: No. 455/1, Malurpatna Village,
Kudalur Post, Mallur Hobli,
Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagara District.                                    ……. Complainant
 
V/s.
 
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
    No. 570, Rectifier House,
    Naigaum Cross Road, Wadala (W),
    Mumbai – 400 031.
    Rep. by its Managing Director
 
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
    Environ Towers, No. 60/4,
    Hosur Main Road, Electronics City,
    Bangalore – 560 100.                               
    Rep. by its duly constituted Attorney(s)   …… Opposite Party
 
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
 
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant had insured his vehicle with the OP for a period from 14.03.2008 to 13.03.2009. On 05.07.2008, the vehicle met with an accident. The vehicle was repaired at Bangalore Mopeds Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., and Complainant has paid Rs.3,79,863/- towards cost of repairs. Complainant submitted claim form to the OP claiming Rs.3,79,863.00. The declared value of the vehicle was Rs.4.00 Lakhs. OP given Cheque for Rs.1,97,393/- as against actual repair charges of Rs.3,79,863/-. The said Cheque was received under protest reserving liberty to claim balance amount. Complainant caused legal notice calling upon to pay the balance amount as per Bill. OP has given vague reply. Hence filed the Complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.1,83,031/- with interest & compensation.
 
2.         OPs have filed version stating that the vehicle was insured with the OP. The Surveyor after detailed examination of the vehicle, prepared the report and submitted to the OP. The loss assessed by the Surveyor is to the tune of Rs.1,97,393/-.  The said amount was paid to the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim. Hence Complaint is barred. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. Therefore, OP prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
 
3.         Both the parties have filed their affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard.
 
4.         Point for consideration are as under:
(1)     Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP?
 
(2)     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief ?
REASONS
5.         There is no dispute that the Complainant had insured his vehicle with the OP and during validity of the Policy the vehicle met with an accident. Complainant left the vehicle for repair at Bangalore Mopeds Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., and Complainant has paid Rs.3,79,863/- towards cost of repair of the vehicle. Thereafter, he submitted the claim form along with documents to the OP and OP has paid Rs.1,97,393/- only to the Complainant. This is also admitted fact. The OP had taken defence that as per the Surveyor’s Report, claim has been settled. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant brought to our notice that there are several discrepancies in the Surveyor’s report. In the said report dtd. 27.07.2009, Surveyor has made original estimate at Rs.2,65,327/- including labour charges & spare parts. In the summary of estimate and assessment of loss, he has made estimation at Rs.2,99,918/- including labour charges & spare parts.  The Surveyor has not at all referred the repair Bills and Invoice submitted by the Complainant in the Survey Report. The Surveyor as against Rs.2,99,918/- has assessed the loss only at Rs.1,97,393/- and for that he has not shown any reasons. There are no reasons or basis to assess the loss by the Surveyor. No doubt Survey Report is a relevant & most important document to be relied on in the nature of present case, but at the same time, the Forum can look into the amount spent by the Complainant for repair of the vehicle. Complainant has produced original Bills of Bangalore Mopeds Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., Complainant has also produced Cash Receipts to show that he has paid Rs.50,000/- under Cash Receipt dtd. 27.05.2009, Rs.2,90,000/- under Cash Receipt dtd. 07.09.2009 and Rs.20,000/- under Cash Receipt dtd. 08.09.2009. Total of the Cash Receipts comes to Rs.3,60,000/-. Cash Receipts are the documents to be relied on for the purpose of finding of the amount spent by the Complainant towards repairs. The Complainant has produced the above Cash Receipts and the Job Card Invoices. OP should have considered the Cash Receipts and the Invoice while settling the claim. Since the Survey Report is not based on the Job Card Invoice and Cash Receipts, it has discrepancies and the assessment made by the Surveyor is not based on the documents, there is no proper assessment of the loss. The Surveyor has not given particulars of each & every spare parts and the cost of the spare parts. He has arrived to total figure for parts without giving particulars Under these circumstances, Survey Report cannot be accepted as valid document to assess the loss & damage. From the documents produced by the Complainant, it has been explained all the details of the loss and each & every spare parts have been shown with its price in the Job Card Invoice. Complainant has paid Rs.3,60,000/- under Cash Receipts to Bangalore Mopeds Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, OP Company could have paid Rs.3,60,000/- as claimed by the Complainant. OP has taken defence that a sum of Rs.1,97,393/- was given towards full & final settlement of the claim. There is no Letter of the Complainant to show that he had accepted the said amount as full & final settlement. On the other hand, Complainant has submitted that he had taken the amount under protest reserving his right to claim balance amount.  In view of this fact, there is no bar to allow the Complaint and direct the OP to pay the balance amount. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
 
ORDER
 
            Complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs.1,62,607/- to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of this Order.
 
            In the event of non compliance of the order within 60 days, the above amount shall carry interest @ 6% P.A. form the date of this Order till date of payment / realization.
 
            Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
 
            Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 28th day of July 2011.
                                                                  Order accordingly
 
PRESIDENT
 
We concur the above findings
 
 
 
MEMBER                       MEMBER
 

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.