Complaint filed on: 25-06-2010 <br /> Disposed on: 24-09-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.1448/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 24th SEPTEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Smt.Manjula W/o.Kantharaju<br /> Aged about 36 years, <br /> Residing at No.26, 1st D Main, <br /> 10th cross, Kempegowda layout, <br /> Prashanthanagar, <br /> Nagarbhavi main road,<br /> Bangalore <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> <br /> 1. The Authorised officer, <br /> TATA AIG General Insurance <br /> Co. Ltd, 2nd Floor, JP and Devi<br /> Jambukeshwar Arcade, <br /> No.69, Millers Road, <br /> Bangalore-560 052<br /> 2. Mr.M.G.Vijay, <br /> Insurance Surveyor, <br /> Loss Assessor, Valuer<br /> No.3/2, 5th Cross, <br /> Amarjyothinagar,<br /> Opp.Vishweswaraiah Co-operative Bank, Bangalore-40<br /> 3. Mr.Prasad.S. (Claims)<br /> TATA AIG General Insurance <br /> Co. Ltd, 2nd Floor, JP and Devi<br /> Jambukeshwar Arcade, <br /> No.69, Millers Road, <br /> Bangalore-560 052<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties [hereinafter called as OPs for short) in brief is that, she is the RC owner of a TATA Indigo LS Car. That car is insured with the 1st OP. On 5-10-2008 at about 11 am a lorry bearing No.KA-02-C-6365 hit her car, as a result, it was fully damaged. That the complaint had been lodged against the driver of the lorry on the same day where in a case came to be registered and intimation was also given to the insurance company. Insurance was in force on the date of accident. Then the 1st OP directed her to lift the car to M/s.Concord Motors for repair and was taken to that repairer on 7-10-2008. The value of the car was Rs.4,14,796/- and she had invested Rs.1,00,000/- towards additional works. That the 2nd OP issued a letter to get the car repaired at M/s.Concord motors. That the 1st OP issued quotation towards the repair work to be done at Rs.3,96,275.36, as per the estimation dated 7-10-2008. But the 1st OP directed her to lift the car from Concord motors to another workshops garage for repairs. Accordingly, she got the car repaired at a different workshop. That she has incurred an expenditure of Rs.7,00,000/-towards the repair works and parking charges. But the Ops have not released the repair charges and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Ops to pay her Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum and to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and grant such other reliefs. <br /> <br /> 2. This forum had ordered notice to 1st OP, who appeared through his advocate and filed version, admitting the insurance issued covering the motor car of the complainant with declared value as Rs.4,14,796/-. The complainant had also informed to them having given the car the M/s.Concord motors, Mysore Road for repair. That their licensed surveyor after inspecting the damage as on 13-10-2008 assessed the damage and liability at Rs.2,70,988/- after deducting depreciation. That they had given permission to get the vehicle repaired. This OP denied to had told the complainant to shift the car from M/s.Concord motors to another garage, has further contended that the complainant without getting the car repaired with the approved garage got it repaired through an unauthorized garage party and claimed Rs.3,33,849/-. It is contended that M/s.Concord motors had estimated total cost of repair including labour charges at Rs.3,96,275.36, but the surveyor after deducting policy excess has assessed at Rs.2,70,988/-. That the complainant got the vehicle repaired with an unauthorized repairer without giving them an opportunity after inspection and disputed the claim of the complainant claiming Rs.7,00,000/- has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one M.Venu, manger claims of OP has filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of the complaint given to the police, copy of FIR, copy of letter of 1st OP addressed to his surveyor, copy of a legal notice and copy of cash bill for having paid repair charges amounting to Rs.3,33,849/-. The 1st OP has produced a copy of report of their surveyor, copy of estimation with a policy copy. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the 1st OP has caused deficiency in his service in not paying the repair cost of her car?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> Point no.1: In the affirmative<br /> Point no.2: See the final Order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: As noticed from the contention of rival parties, we find not dispute with regard to the owner ship of the car of the complainant, it having met with an accident resulting in extensive damage that the policy was in force on the date of accident and liability of the 1st OP to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant except the dispute with regard to the quantum of damages payable to the complainant. Therefore we shall straight away go to the disputed issue between the parties. <br /> <br /> 7. It is undisputed that the 1st OP who was approached by the complainant seeking permission to get the vehicle repaired, OP no.1 had permitted the complainant to get the car repaired with an approved service provider namely M/s.Concord motors. The complainant though initially left the car with M/s.Concord motors but latter on shifted to the private garage namely B&C Motors and got the car repaired there. The complainant though has stated that the OP No.1 had told her to change the garage but the 1st OP has denied that and has found fault with the complainant in not getting the car repaired with the approved repairer. Therefore it is found that the complainant on her own got the car repaired through an unauthorized service provider. <br /> <br /> 8. It is not in dispute that the M/s.Concord motors the approved garage had estimated damage to the car at Rs.3,71,277.86 that copy of estimation is produced by the 1st OP himself. Thereafter the vehicle was assessed for repair assessment cum process sheet/work order and total damage was assessed at Rs.2,70,988/- by the surveyor after deducting policy excess. The 1st OP has also admitted that M/s.Concord motors had estimated damage at Rs.3,71,277.86. But the complainant on her own option and for her own reasons did not get the car repaired at Concord motors but got it repaired from private i.e. unauthorized garage by incurring total expenditure Rs.3,43,849. But the OP without considering the claim of the complainant for paying this amount appears to had got the damage re-assessed through their surveyor by name M.G.Vijay who is assessed the damage at Rs.2,24,608.19 after deducting policy excess of Rs.500/-. On considering the defence of the 1st OP, it is not understandable as to why they did not settle the claim of the complainant either by acting on the repair cost as produced by the complainant on the estimation reached by M/s.Concord motors or at least on the basis of report of their surveyor. The counsel for the 1st OP during the course of arguments filed the affidavit of surveyor with a copy of his estimation and stated that their liability could be at Rs.2,24,608.19 as estimated by their surveyor. Therefore considering three estimations placed before us, this forum has to decide as to what would be the reasonable amount of insurance amount that could be granted to the complainant towards damages of her car. On the one side service bill amount Rs.3,33,849/- claiming have to be paid by the complainant towards repair charges. M/s.Concord motors estimated repair charges at Rs.3,71,277.86 of course the vehicle was not got repaired from them. Whereas the surveyor has assessed liability of the 1st OP at Rs.2,24,608.19/-. On perusal of the affidavit evidence of the surveyor, it is apparent that is assessment made by him is based on the estimate given by the authorized repairer i.e. M/s.Concord motors, Mysore Road. It is further manifest that the surveyor did not assess damage after inspecting the damaged car but assessed based on the estimate giving by M/s.Concord motors. That estimation of the surveyor can not be said as scientific and practical therefore no value to the assessment of the surveyor can be attached as such the assessment of the surveyor assessing the insurance liability at Rs.2,24,608.19 has to be rejected as it is an imaginary and unscientific. If assessment of surveyor is taken out of consideration then we have estimation of the M/s.Concord motors and actual cost incurred by the complainant. <br /> <br /> 9. The 1st OP himself in the version and also in the affidavit evidence admitted that estimation given by the approved garage people will always be on higher side not only towards cost of spare parts but also regarding labour charges and that the estimation of the unauthorized service provider will be less, for this the 1st OP has offered reasons that the approved service provider use genuine spare parts and therefore cost of repair will be more. Therefore considering all aspects of the case and the fact that the 1st OP has not disputed the cost of repair incurred by the complainant and that cost when is even lesser than the estimation of M/s.Concord motors to whom the 1st OP referred the complainant for getting repairs done the repair cost of Rs.3,33,849/- incurred by the complainant in our view is reasonable has to be paid after deducting policy excess of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant in the complaint without mentioning the actual cost of repair has claimed insurance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- which is nothing but hypothical figure and is imaginary. Thus the complaint in our view is to be allowed in part and therefore, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. The 1st OP is directed to pay Rs.3,33,349/-to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of this complaint till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> The 1st OP shall also pay cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 24th September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br />