BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 06.09.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR  :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M :      LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 2149/2022

ORDER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.    The opposite party has filed this Appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the order dated: 27.07.2022 passed in C.C. No.721/2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi.

02.    The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.

03.    Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for Appellant and no argument addressed for Respondent.   

04.    The District Commission after enquiring into the matter had partly allowed the consumer complaint No.721/2020 on 27.07.2022 as against opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and dismissed as against opposite party No.3.  The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,38,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from 30.07.2020 till realization and the opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for deficiency of service and excess amount recovered from complainant on the premises of double bills.  The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

05.    Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party No.1 had filed this Appeal.

06.    Perused the impugned order and the grounds urged in the Appeal.   The brief facts of the Appeal are that, the complainant being the owner of Toyato Innova 2.5 GXBS bearing registration No. KA-22-Z-7280 model 2015 had insured his vehicle with the opposite party No.1 up to 04.08.2020.  On 07.02.2019 the said vehicle was reportedly damaged in the RTA that occurred near NH-4 near Jaisinghpur Park in Kagal Taluk, Kholaphur District.  The complainant lodged O.D. claim and on receipt the opposite party No.1 arranged for investigation.  The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.5,02,362/- and by adding Rs.84,352.40, the total estimation is Rs.5,86,714.40.  Further the surveyor depreciated value of pars at Rs.21,952/- and salvage deduction at Rs.5,000/- and assessed loss at Rs.5,81,714.40 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  After acceptance by the complainant the opposite party No.1 had paid an amount of Rs.4,09,000/- to the complainant without any protest.  Later complainant raised that, he had spent the amount to the opposite party No.2 to get release of the vehicle had lodged consumer complaint against the opposite party No.1.  

07.    The grounds urged by the Appellant is that, the District forum had failed to appreciate that, the liability of the appellant to settle the O.D. claim would be subject to the terms and conditions and exclusions enumerated in the policy document.  The District Forum had failed to appreciate that, the claim of the complainant was not repudiated, but was settled in terms of the survey report as provided under section 64UM of the Insurance Act.  The complainant had accepted the settlement without any protest in that regard and later he turn round and lodged complaint which is sustainable in law.  The complainant did not examine any competent person to speak about the alleged damages and the expenses incurred by him.  The District Forum had erred in holding that, the opposite party No.1 was liable to make good the difference of the bill amount which is contrary to the surveyor’s report. 

08.    During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for Appellant – insurance company had submitted judgment passed by this Commission in Appeal No.1692/2011, dated: 09.10.2019 and so also decision of Hon’ble NCDRC reported in 2019(4) CPR 83(NC) between Indian Acrylics Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others.  Further the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 – Insurance company had argued that, the opposite party No.1-insurance company had paid Rs.4,09,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and for which the complainant had also executed discharge voucher in favour of opposite party No.1 on 30.07.2020 towards full and final satisfaction of the claim, hence question of claiming enhanced amount again in respect of the alleged insurance policy does not arise.     

09.    In view of the above submission, it is very pertinent to note here that, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as per the estimation given by the surveyor the opposite party No.1-insurance company had settled the claim to the tune of Rs.4,09,000/- to the complainant and for which the complainant had also executed the discharge voucher in favour of opposite party No.1- insurance company on 30.07.2020 and there is no proof to show that, the complainant had executed the said discharge voucher in favour of opposite party No.1 – insurance company only because of attempting any force, coercion or undue influence made by the opposite party No.1-insurance company.  Hence the District Commission without taking cognisance of the same proceeded to pass the order by allowing the same.  Hence, the Appeal stands allowed. Consequently the order dated: 27.07.2022 passed by the District Commission, Belagavi, in C.C. No.721/2020 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.    The amount kept in deposit by the appellant shall be transferred to the District Commission for needful.      

11.    Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.

LADY MEMBER         JUDICIAL MEMBER         PRESIDENT

KNMP*