THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
APPEAL NO.262/2018
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The General Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd,
Registered and Head office 3,
Middleton Street, … Appellant/s
Post Box No.9229, Kolkatta-700071
2. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd
Sector No.25, Plot No.38,
Navanagar, Bagalkot,
Now both are represented by the
Regional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
No.144, Subharam Complex,
MG Road, Bengaluru- 560 001
(By Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate)
V/s
Smt.Renuka, W/o Kallappa Hadli,
Aged about 50 years, … Respondent/s
Occ: Business, R/o Yadahalli Tq,
Bagalkot District
(Absent)
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellants/Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in complaint No.221/2016 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Bagalkot which directed these appellants to pay Rs.69,200/- with interest @9% p.a. from 8-3-2016 to till realization along with Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses and submits that the complainant is a owner of the MAXICAB TOOFAN FORCE vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-29-M-7417 which was met with an accident on 8-3-2016, but the information was given on 14.3.2016. After receipt of this information, these appellants had suggested the complainant to furnish the claim form along with required documents immediately, but the claim form was submitted only on 24-6-2016, immediately after receipt of the claim form, they have deputed the surveyor to assess the loss, where the surveyor noticed the vehicle was already repaired and he was not able to assess the loss suffered. Due to non-availability of the assessment, these OPs repudiated the claim made by the complainant.
2. Aggrieved by the said, the complainant approached the District Commission and sought for expenses made towards repair of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.69,200/-. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed these appellants to pay the above said, for the reasons that the surveyor has not produced any documents. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The vehicle was already repaired and surveyor was not able to assess the loss. In the absence of such any assessment, these appellants were not able to pay the claim amount made by the complainant, without considering the said fact, the District Commission allowed the complaint.
3. Further the learned advocate for appellants submits that the complainant had not informed the accident soon after 8.3.2016 whereas he was only informed after lapse of six days i.e. on 14-3-2016. For which they have intimated to the complainant to file necessary claim form along with required documents, but the complainant only filed claim form along with required documents delay at belated stage. When the surveyor was deputed on 27-6-2016, it was noticed the vehicle was already repaired two months back. But the District Commission without considering the said facts had allowed the complaint. The order passed by the District Commission lacks legality hence, prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
4. Heard from appellants. Respondent is not present.
5. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, it is noticed that the accident took place on 8-3-2016, whereas the complainant informed the accident only on 14-3-2016. Subsequently the complainant also tendered claim form on 24-6-2016, in spite of intimation given by these appellants to claim at the earliest point of time. Anyhow after receipt of the claim, these appellants had appointed one surveyor to assess the loss on 27-6-2016 where it was noticed that, the vehicle was already repaired two months earlier and the same information given to these appellants, basing on the said, these appellants repudiated the claim. We noticed here that there is clear negligent on the part of complainant in repairing the vehicle without inspection of the surveyor. That as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant ought to wait for surveyor or appellant to give consent for repair and only after assessment made by the surveyor, the complainant ought to the repair the vehicle, here in this case the complainant without informing the appellants had repaired the vehicle and claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs.69,200/- basing on the bills issued by the repairer. The said bills are not subjected to settlement, until and unless proper assessment made by the surveyor towards damages of the vehicle. We found when there is no damaged vehicle found for assessment, these appellants are not able to settle the claim. We are of the opinion the repudiation made by these appellants is justifiable and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of these appellants. The District Commission failed to appreciate the defence of the appellants and negligence on the part of the complainant and allowed the complaint. The order passed by the District Commission lacks legality. Hence, it requires to be set aside, since there is no any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of these appellants. The complainant is not entitled get any relief as such the appeal is allowed and accordingly the order passed by the District Commission hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed.
The impugned order 1.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bagalkot in CC.No.221/2016 is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the appellants/Opposite Parties.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
