Complaint originally filed on: 28.05.2012
Complaint taken on board after remand on : 16.10.2014
Complaint Disposed after remand on:10.02.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.84/2012
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri.Ahmed Pasha,
S/o Late Mohammed ghouse,
Aged about 54 years,
R/o No.353, Pension
Mohalla, Chikmagalur.
(By Sri/Smt. L.P Sathish, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. Shriram Transport Finance
Co., Ltd., Opp syndicate bank,
I.G Road, Chikmagalur.
2. M/s. Shriram General Insurance
Company Limited, No.10003-E-8,
E.P.I.P.R.I.I.C.O., Industrial area,
Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajastan-3020222.
(OP No.1-By Sri/Smt. Hareesh Singatagere, Advocate)
(OP No.2-By Sri/Smt. C.O.Yogesh, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP No.1 & 2 alleging a deficiency in not settling the claim towards the damages of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.89,210/-. Hence, prays for direction against Op No.1 and 2 to settle the claim along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is a owner of Tata truck bearing registration no.KA-18-D-5529 and insured with Op no.2 vide policy no.10003/31/11/248037 which is valid from 17.09.2010 to 16.09.2011, such being the case on 07.08.2011 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near Bhadravathi and police complaint was given by complainant, after that the complainant also informed to Op no.1 and 2 with respect to the accident, subsequently complainant repaired the vehicle and spent Rs.89,210/- towards repairs, there afterwards he claim for reimbursement of the said amount from Op no.1 and 2. The Op no.1 agreed to pay an amount, but not made any arrangements for payment, complainant visited the office of the Op no.1 on several occasions and requested for settlement of the claim, but Op no.1 not responded properly, having no option the complainant issued legal notice dated 03.03.2012 and called upon Op no.1 and 2 to settle the claim, even inspite of receipt of the legal notice Op no.1 and 2 have not settled the claim. Hence, prays for direction against Op no.1 and 2 to settle the claim along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op no.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version.
Op no.1 in his version contended that it is true that Op no.2 had issued a policy bear no. 10003/31/11/248037 to the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration no.KA-18-D-5529 which is valid from 17.09.2010 to 16.09.2011 through this Op and the same is hypothecated to this Op. It is also true that on 07.08.2011 the vehicle met with an accident which causes damages to the vehicle, complainant also spent Rs.89,210/- towards repair of the vehicle.
After report the accident to this Op and this Op has not made any promise for payment of the claim and it is also false that complainant had visited the Op no.1 office and requested for settlement of the claim.
Op no.1 further contended that the Op no.2 had issued a D.D for Rs.35,545 to this Op towards loan account of the complainant, after receipt of the said D.D the 1st Op informed that the loan account of the complainant was already closed and informed them to take back the D.D., but till today Op no.2 had not received the said D.D. which was issued towards loan account of the complainant and this Op is ready to pay the said amount of Rs.35,545/- either to complainant or to Op no.2, but complainant and Op no.2 have not received the said amount from this Op, hence, there is no any negligence/deficiency in service on the part of this Op and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Op no.2 in his version has contended that it is true that they have issued policy in the name of complainant towards his vehicle bearing registration no.KA-18-D-5529 and it is also true that on 07.08.2011 the vehicle met with an accident near Bhadravathi and police have lodged FIR in this regard, but it is false that complainant had spent Rs.89,210/- towards repair of the vehicle, the liability of this Op is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy issued to the complainant, the vehicle of the complainant is 2002 model which exceeds 9 years old vehicle and hence the depreciation of the material parts up to 40% was made and 50% on rubber and plastic parts, nil depreciation of glass items.
After the receipt of the information with respect to the accident of the vehicle, this Op has appointed one surveyor to assess the damages and accordingly the surveyor of the company had assessed the loss and damages towards vehicle and after making all depreciations the said surveyor has submitted the report suggesting the loss to be payable to the extent of Rs.35,545/-. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get entire repair charges of Rs.89,210/- towards vehicle, accordingly an amount of Rs.35,545 was paid to the complainant. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op, inspite of receipt of the said amount in order to claim wrongfully complainant filed this false complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. After the remand complainant not filed any fresh affidavit, but earlier he had filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.11. Op no.1 subsequently filed memo with cheque for Rs.35,545/- and Op no.2 not filed any fresh affidavit.
5. Heard the arguments on both sides:
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. Earlier the complaint filed by complainant was allowed and Op no.1 and 2 are directed to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.89,210/- along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, for which Op no.2 preferred an appeal before Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission had remanded back the complaint by providing an opportunity to both the parties to proceed the matter afresh, accordingly this forum has issued a notice to both complainant and Op no.1 and 2, after appearance Op no.1 filed version and also filed memo with cheque for Rs.35,545/- and the said amount was received by complainant, but Op no.2 and complainant have not filed any fresh affidavit.
The learned advocate for Op no.2 vehemently argued that the amount assessed by surveyor to the tune of Rs.35,545/- was paid to the complainant in turn the said amount was adjusted to the loan account of the complainant, they have paid the compensation towards own damage as per the surveyor report. Hence, submits no deficiency in service.
The learned advocate for complainant also vehemently argued that earlier the complaint was allowed and directed the Op no.1 and 2 to pay the entire repair charges of Rs.89,210/- to the complainant, but instead of compliance Op no.2 preferred an appeal, appeal was allowed and matter was remanded back for reconsideration as a fresh. Complainant earlier had produced documents with affidavit marked as Ex.P.1 to P.11. On observation of the said documents the complainant had spent nearly Rs.89,210/- towards repairs, but as per the terms and conditions of the policy the own damage claim is payable to the complainant subject to the depreciation on certain parts, accordingly, surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,545/- and suggested the Op no.2 to pay the said amount, accordingly Op no.2 had paid the said amount through D.D. to Op no.1, who is financier of the complainant, subsequently during course of trial after remand Op no.1 had paid the said amount to the complainant and complainant received the said amount in this forum, hence, we found there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1 and 2 in settling the own damage claim of the complainant, the policy does not provide the complainant to receive entire repair charges, the said repair charges are subject to depreciation, as such the claim made by complainant was scrutinized and paid by Op no.2, as such we found no dispute arose in the complaint. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 10th day of February 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
NIL
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
NIL
Dated:10.02.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
