Date of Filing: 22/10/2011

        Date of Order: 17/12/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  17^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

C.C. NO.1945 OF 2011

Ms.S.Kavitha,

D/o. Sri.V.M.Shankarappa,

Aged About 28 years,

R/at: No.176/1, 2^nd Main, 8^th Cross,

Ganganagar, Bangalore-560 032.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.Janaradhan Reddy)                             ….  Complainant.

V/s

Royal Sundaram Alliance Company Limited,

No.186/7, Raghavendra Complex,

Wilson Garden, 1^st Cross, Hosur main Road,

Bangalore-560 027.

Rep. by its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.H.B.Vijaya Kumar)                            …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3,02,030/-, are necessary:-

          The complainant has insured his Maruthi Swift LDI Car bearing No. KA-04-MF-1062 with the opposite party declaring the value i.e., IDV of Rs.2,77,030/- and the insurance was valid between 08.04.2011 to 07.04.2012.  On 28.06.2011 the car met with an accident and sustained damages which was shifted to the garage as per the instructions of the opposite party to M/s. Mandovi Motors and a police complaint was also lodged before the police who registered the case in crime No.201/2011.  The opposite party sent the surveyor to the garage and a estimation report was given for Rs.2,46,121/- plus labour charges.  The complainant furnished all the relevant documents to the opposite party.  The opposite party instead of showing interest in paying the bills, have shown interest to the claim only on salvage loss basis by the letter dated: 14.07.2011.  As per the report of the surveyor of the opposite party the estimation of the repair charges is Rs.1,90,000/-.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite party are:-

          As the claim with respect to the accidental damage to the vehicle was lodged to the Chennai corporate branch office of the opposite party this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The insurance, the policy with the opposite party, its validity is admitted.  Upon receipt of the accident claim intimation, the opposite party has engaged an IRDA licensed surveyor Mr.Jaffer Sadhiq to give detailed report who gave a report dated: 04.07.2011 stating that the repair liability as Rs.2,15,000/-; upon dismantling of the vehicle, and therefore suggested for a salvage loss basis settlement as the vehicle is not in a repairable condition.  The report is binding on the parties.  On the basis of the said report the opposite party has issued a letter to the complainant on 14.07.2011, complainant has not cared to reply it.  The opposite party on 10.08.2011, 24.08.2011 and on 21.09.2011 wrote to the complainant seeking settlement of the claim on the total loss basis.  Hence as per the policy conditions the complaint has to be dismissed.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the complainant had filed their respective documents and only the complainant had filed his affidavit.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B)         :           As per the final Order

                                       for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A to B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has insured her Maruthi Swift LDI car bearing No. KA-04-MF-1062 with the opposite party and the insurance was valid between 08.04.2011 to 07.04.2012.  It is also an admitted fact that the said car met with an accident on 28.06.2011 and the complaint was lodged with the jurisdictional police who registered the case in Crime No.201/2011.  As the vehicle had sustained damages as per the request of the opposite party the said vehicle was moved to M/s.Mandovi Motors Private Limited who after inspection of the vehicle gave an estimate at Rs.3,25,129.32 paise i.e., Rs.2,46,121.38 paise for repair regarding parts etc., and Rs.79,007.93 paise towards labour charges.  In this regard the surveyor Mr.Jaffer Sadhiq was appointed by the opposite party to inspect the vehicle to assess the damage and give report.  The relevant portion of the report of the surveyor reads thus:-

That is to say that items liability will be around Rs.55,000/-, if entire vehicle is dismantled the liability will be more than Rs.2,15,000/-, hence he has given a suggestion to the opposite party to deal with it on salvage loss basis.  On this the opposite party has assessed salvage loss basis at Rs.6,530/- and they are prepared to settle to on this amount, which amounts to repudiation of the policy.  This has not been accepted by the complainant.  Hence let us probe further.

7.       In this case, the value for the repair that has been given by the Mandovi Motors Private Limited is (i) value of the items Rs.2,15,895.97, (ii) VAT @ 14% Rs.30,225.41 paise = Rs.2,46,121.38 paise, the labour charges has valued at Rs.71,630/-, on that amount service tax of Rs.7,163/-, additional cess of Rs.214.93 that is in all Rs.79,007.93 paise.  Thus they have estimated the value of the repair charges at Rs.3,25,129.32 paise.  The insurance surveyor has stated that items liability will be of Rs.55,000/-.  That may be the salvage value and if dismantled there liability will be more than Rs.2,15,000/-.

8.       The opposite party has stated that the wreck value is Rs.2,70,000/- and the net liability of the opposite party is Rs.6,530/-.  In any event as per the insurance surveyor’s report the value of the items is Rs.55,000/- and if we take that as the salvage value, the IDV Rs.2,77,030/-, if we deduct Rs.55,000/- in this the salvage value it comes to Rs.2,22,030/-.  The complainant is at liberty either to sell the vehicle for Rs.55,000/- or to get it repaired by paying any amount she deems fit.  But the opposite party is liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,22,030/- to the complainant.  This has not been paid, nor even tendered nor even offered, but they are trying to pay only Rs.6,536/- this is nothing, but deficiency in service.  Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.        The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.2,22,030/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.07.2011 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.

3.        The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of this litigation.

4.        The opposite party is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       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 17^th Day of December 2011)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT