Date of Filing: 18/10/2011
Date of Order: 31/12/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 31st 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
C.C. NO.1906 OF 2011
Sri.N.Ramachandrappa,
S/o. Narayanappa,
Permanently R/at:
No.41, 3rd Block, Masti,
Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
Presently R/at:
No.227, Near Maramma Temple,
Yeranapalya, Ramamurthynagar,
Bangalore-560 016.
(Rep. by Sri.H.C.Ramesh, Advocate) …. Complainant.
V/s
(1) The Branch Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPURA,
Jaipur, Rajastan-302022.
Having Branch Office At:
(2) The Branch Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
S-5, 2nd Floor, Monarch Chambers,
Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001.
(Rep. by Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, Advocate) …. Opposite Parties.
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 Parties to pay the sum of Rs.1,04,728/-, are necessary:-
The complainant had insured his Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No. KA-08-4849 with the opposite parties in No.10004/31/11/015122 and the insurance was valid between 23.11.2010 to 22.11.2011. The said lorry met with an accident on 09.01.2011 at 2.30 am at Ananthpur in Andhra Pradesh. Immediately it was brought to the notice of the opposite parties who informed the complainant to take photographs of the lorry, videos of the lorry and make DVD get it repaired and send the same to their office with the bills for repairing charges. Accordingly, the complainant got repaired the said lorry at Ananthpur who charged the sum of Rs.1,80,353/- on 29.01.2011 and got the body building work done at Nammakal District for Rs.35,000/-. Thus he incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,15,353/-. The complainant laid the claim for the first time with the opposite parties. But the opposite parties has reimbursed only Rs.1,10,625/- and not the whole amount. Hence the complainant issued notice to the opposite parties on 02.08.2011 asking them to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,04,728/-, as it has not been paid this complaint is filed.
2. In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-
The ownership of the vehicle, its insurance are all admitted. On information from the complainant regarding accident that occurred, immediately the opposite parties appointed a surveyor for inspection of the damaged vehicle at the spot, but the complainant has not given any opportunity to inspect the damaged vehicle for spot inspection. On submission of the estimation report and vehicle documents the opposite parties appointed a surveyor for final assessment and accordingly the surveyor has assessed the damages caused to the vehicle, after inspection of the vehicle in garage and on detailed discussion had with the complainant and the repairer and accordingly he submitted the report to the opposite parties who has settled the claim for Rs.1,10,625/- on 29.03.2011 deducting depreciation and salvage as per the conditions of the policy, even though the complainant has violated the policy terms and conditions. The allegation that the complainant has shifted the vehicle to the repairer after informing the opposite party and on his direction to take photographs, video, DVD and to submit the same after repair are all false. The complainant has created the bills, even though the lorry was not damaged. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had insured his Lorry bearing No. KA-08-4849 with the opposite parties and the insurance was valid between 23.11.2010 to 22.11.2011. It is also an admitted fact that the lorry met with an accident on 09.01.2011 at 2.30 am at Ananthpur in Andhra Pradesh. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had shifted the lorry from the accident spot to Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited, Subhash Road, Ananthpur, for repair who repaired the vehicle charged the complainant the sum of Rs.1,80,353/- on 29.01.2011. The complainant got the body building of the vehicle at Sri Velavan Labour Body Builders, Tiruchengode, Nammakal District, at a cost of Rs.35,000/- and he made a claim to the opposite parties for a total sum of Rs.2,15,353/-. The opposite parties on the basis of the surveyors report sent a cheque dated: 29.03.2011 for Rs.1,10,625/- and this has been accepted by the complainant. On 02.08.2011 after lapse of 5 months after the receipt of the cheque complainant has issued notice to the opposite parties and filed this complaint stating that the amount paid is insufficient. Hence we have to probe further.
7. The complainant has stated that he had informed it to the opposite parties immediately after the accident took place and they directed him to take photographs of the lorry which met with an accident, get video and make it DVD get it repaired and submit the claim along with the bills to the opposite parties, hence he moved vehicle to the garage got it repaired and submitted the claim form. This has been specifically denied by the opposite parties. The complainant never stated to which of the opposite parties he had informed, when he had informed, where and how he informed, to whom he had informed and which of the opposite parties directed him to take photographs, video and make DVD and after submit the claim along with bills to the opposite parties after repair. The pleading and evidence is as bald as it could be. In this case one of the opposite party is at Jaipur and another is at Bangalore. To which of the opposite party he has informed. How he has informed, whom has informed and who is the personnel who has informed him to shift the vehicle to the repairer after taking photographs, video and DVD? There is no answer. That means this is an afterthought as rightly contended. That means the complainant has made the opposite parties to loose valuable piece of evidence at the spot and made them not to visit the accidental spot and to assess the damages that has been caused at the spot. This valuable pieces of evidence has been lost to the opposite parties on account of the complainant. Hence the opposite parties were justified in the matter in assessing the damages on the basis of its surveyors report as rightly contended.
8. In this case the complainant was directed to submit the surveyors report, covering letter with respect to the cheque dated: 29.03.2011 and Kannada translation of letter dated: 01.02.2011 that is Annexure-E. On 08.11.2011 the complainant has filed a Memo with the English translation of the said bill but not the Kannada translation of the bill nor filed the covering letter but filed a Memo and filed an affidavit but has not produced the surveyor report and has not stated that he had applied for the copy of the surveyors report and the opposite party has declined to grant it. This has to be viewed very seriously. This is nothing but disobedience of the orders of this Forum. In any event the opposite parties has clearly stated and sworn to at para-4 & 5 thus:-
“It is submitted that having received the information from the complainant regarding the accident that occurred, immediately this respondent herein appointed a surveyor for inspection of the damaged vehicle on spot, but the complainant has not given any opportunity to inspect the damaged vehicle for spot verification.
It is submitted that on submission of the estimation report and vehicle documents, the respondent herein has appointed surveyor for final assessment and accordingly he has assessed the damage caused to the vehicle for a sum of Rs.1,10,625/- on repair basis, after inspection of the vehicle in garage and on detailed discussion had with the complainant and the repairer and accordingly he has submitted the report to the company.”
This has not been challenged by the complainant in has affidavit nor denied by the complainant in his affidavit. That means only after the vehicle had been shifted to the repairer the complainant had informed the opposite party about the damage and; the surveyor in presence of the complainant had inspected the damaged vehicle and surveyor has discussed with the complainant and gave the report.
9. The surveyors has assessed the net loss at Rs.1,40,500/-, because the complainant had given the information letter, four days later, after the incident, though the opposite party could have rejected the claim because of the delay in view of the judgments of the National Forum still it has deducted certain percentage on non-standard basis and issued the cheque for Rs.1,13,500/-. The calculation sheet reads thus:-
Along with this the opposite parties has sent cheque to the complainant, but the complainant has suppressed all these things.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that in the surveyors report the surveyor has stated thus:-
“Note: Salvage value deducted @ 15% on Front axle beam & Chassis long member, as per the discussion with Mr. Bhadru, Kadapa.
Damaged Cabin & FES repairs are going to carried out at Namakkal by Insured
CCC & Discharge voucher is going to be submitted by Insured after cabin repairs.”
Accordingly they have got the vehicle repaired at Nammakal and for that Rs.35,000/- should have been paid to them. This is an untenable contention. The opposite parties had deducted the salvage value at 15% and regarding the Damage Cabin and FES repairs it is the statement of the complainant that has been recorded, it does not say the cabin or any other thing is damaged. The opposite parties in the version has contended that there was no such damage. If there were to be damage to the cabin or to any other thing to the vehicle the complainant would have lodged a complaint to the police and the police would have prepared a mahazar in the matter and that mahazar would have been produced before the Forum to show what exactly is the damage, that has not been done by the complainant. The complainant had removed the vehicle from the spot behind the back of the opposite party hence the opposite party could not assess the damage that has been caused to the vehicle. Hence merely the complainant had repaired the vehicle or got the body building done at Nammakal it does not mean the opposite party is liable to pay that Rs.35,000/-. Even otherwise what this Rs.35,000/- that has been paid at Nammakal? The alleged English version of the receipt that has been produced by the complainant in gross violation of the orders of this forum reads thus:-
This is nothing but absurdity. What is the price or charges for each of the items is not stated. What is the labour charges is not stated. Then how to believe this? There is no proof to show that it had a nickel name board, side name board-2, side mirror Frame, Side chassis, side aluminum chassis sheet, Metalum body 2, Metalum paste, water genal windows, approm glass bidding, top mica, broad bumper, bolt net and screw, Tinkar belt, welding, coal cutting, body cable tinkar, earlier to that date nor stated what are its costs which bolt net and screw of which size? not stated. What is the cost of each of these things and what is the labour cost? There is no answer. Hence for his fancy the complainant might have got this done, hence how to say that this is the charges that has been paid or got done.
11. In this regard the complainant himself given the alleged quotation with respect to the said body building dated:30.01.2011 which reads thus:-
That means it is a quotation for construction of a new Ashok Layland / Tata Benz Chassis including cost of materials steel sheets, wooden planks, beeding front show shed, yellow light, dash board, front and side glasses, diesel tank lengthening and slicer alteration, wiring materials, painting materials and sleeping seat, complete cost of materials charges. But the bill that has been given is for something else. When the total body building costs Rs.35,000/- including labour and material costs how can a damaged materials could cost Rs.35,000/-? This clearly goes to show everything has been concocted by the complainant.
12. Hence the Surveyor has assessed the value of the repair of the vehicle and the opposite parties after taking salvage in to consideration and the delay in making the claim has given the amount which is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. There is nothing wrong in this. It is the avariciousness of the complainant to get more money as rightly contended this complaint is filed. Thus there is no deficiency in service. The complainant had not come to this Forum with clean hands. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. 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 31st Day of December 2011)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
