-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

                                                               C.C. No.50/2018.

                                                Date of filing: 07.08.2018.

                                                       Date of disposal: 26.07.2019.

P R E S E N T:-    

                              (1) Shri. Ashok Hanamath Malaghan                                                                                                                                                                                            B.Com. LL.B. ( Spl.)

                                                                                President. ( I/C )

                          (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                     B.A.LL.B. (Spl.)

                                                                             Member.

COMPLAINANT/S     Sri Farid Patel  S/o Lal Patil

                                     Age: 40  Occ: Business

                                     R/o Handikera village

                                    Tq.Humnabad Dist.Bidar.                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ( By Sri. Ashok Gokhale, Adv.)                   

                                                  VERSUS

OPPONENT/S:          1. The Branch Manager

                                       Chola MS General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                        Registered and Head Office  

                                      2^nd Floor  Dare House

                                      2 NSC Bose road  Chennai 600001.

                                 2.   Naseer

                                       M.A Baig Complex

                                       Tiprant  Basavakalyan

                                       Dist.Bidar.

                                   ( O.P. No.1 By Sri. V.M.Prakash  Adv.)

                                   ( O.P.No.2 Exparte )

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By Shri. Ashok Hanamant Malaghan  President.

This is a complaint filed by the  complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986 against the O.Ps for giving direction to the O.Ps. to pay compensation to the complainant a sum of of Rs.8,60,000/-  with 18% interest.

2.      Brief facts of the case of the complaint are:

          The complainant states that he is a owner and possessor of vehicle No. MH-04 EL-1227 1A3DHC9AHVA8463, engine no. WAH611968 which has insured with O.P.No.1 under the policy                                            no. 3379/01162043/000/00 and same is  valid from 13.03.2015 to 12.03.2016.  Further complainant submits that on 01.08.2015 while his vehicle proceeding from Mumbai to Hyderabad with fully loaded with Eggs  due to an accident the vehicle fallen under the sea.  The  eggs loaded in the vehicle was worth Rs. 3,50,000/- are damaged  due to accident caused to vehicle and thereby it’s chassis was bended and both lights were broken.  In this regard the complainant has registered case at Wasi Police station, New Mumbai in Crime No.36/2015 and the Police conducted the Panchanama and other formalities.  Thereafter the complainant has approached the O.Ps for claim.   The O.Ps as per the policy conditions they have to pay a sum of Rs.8,60,000/- but they have paid   Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has got issued the legal                    notices to the O.Ps in spite of receipt of the legal notice the O.Ps did not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has suffered mental agony inconvenience and financial loss.  Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum for claiming compensation of Rs.8,60,000 from the O.Ps. 

3.      After the notice issued by this Forum, the O.P.No.2 in spite of receipt of notice, has not appeared before this Forum hence  the O.P.no.2 placed exparte.  The O.P. no.1 has appeared before this Forum and filed his Written version and has contended that he has appointed the surveyor to inspect the subject vehicle and to assess the loss.  Hence, as   per the survey report, the insurance Company has paid the vehicle damage of Rs. 1,37,440/- to the complainant as a full and final satisfaction of the claim, after taking consent from the complainant.  Hence, the other averment of the complainant are false and baseless without any proper record.  Hence the complaint is deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.

4.     The complainant has created false documents in order to claim higher compensation by creating false story.  So the complainant be directed to prove the same by strict proofs.  The O.P. has acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy and also as per the guidelines of IRDA and as per the surveyor assessment the amount has been paid to the complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency of service by the O.Ps.  in any manner.  The O.P.No.1 further contended that the present complainant is barred by limitation hence the same is fit to be dismissed on this count.  The O.P. further denied that the estimation and bills produced by the complainant are all bogus and same does not disclosed the KST & CST numbers.  Therefore same are not acceptable documents which are created for the purpose of false claim in collusion with concerned authority.  So, further claim of the complainant are not payable by O.P.  Hence he prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case the following points are arose for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant proves that there is a  deficiency of service on the part of the Opponents  in settling the claim of the complainant ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled any reliefs claimed ?
3. What orders?

6.      Our answers to the above points   are as follows:-

1. In the Negative.
2. Not answered
3. As per the final order  

7.   Point No.1

           Considering the pleading of both the parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant was the owner of subject vehicle and the same was met with accident within the jurisdiction Wasi of Maharastra State and the same was covered by insurance policy issued by the O.P.no.1 as on the date of alleged accident. 

8.      The complainant has claimed that, his vehicle was extensively damaged to the extent of Rs.8,60,000/- in the accident caused on 01.08.2015 and accordingly claim was made before the O.P. for claiming the above said amount and has produced necessary documents for settlement of the said claim as needed by the O.P.  But, the O.P. has under valued the loss caused to the complainant’s vehicle, only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby the O.P. has shown his deficiency in service towards the complainant in settling his above said claim. 

9.         But  on the other hand the O.P. has submitted that  as per the rules and as per the request of the complainant the authorized surveyor has appointed to assess the loss caused to the vehicle and on the basis of  the final survey report by the technician, the amount was settled to the extent of Rs.1,37,440/- and the same has been paid to the complainant as per law.  So  there is nothing on record to show that, there is a deficiency of service rendered by the O.Ps  hence complainant has failed to establish the said facts by cogent proofs.  The survey report issued by a technical experts is binding on all the parties concerned unless there is a contrary proofs produced by the complainant.  Hence further claim of the complainant are not payable  against above survey report.  Further complainant  has approached this Hon’ble Forum with false documents which does not bear any GST or CST numbers.  Hence the said documents are not considerable documents in the eye of law.  So, the claim is fit to be rejected.  In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant has produced in all 38 documents under Annexure P.1 to P.38 including the vehicle documents under Annexure P.1 to P.9.  Annexure P.10 is the copy of the Aadhar card of the complainant and Annexure P.11 is the new parts particulars details. P.12 is the estimation of labour charges.  Annexure P.15 to P.20 are the bills issued by various guarage authorities.  But Annexure P.15, P.17 and P.18 are the cash receipt bills totaling to Rs.86,860/   Except these bills the complainant has not produced any other proofs for claiming total loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.   8,60,000/ The complainant has produed photo of the damaged vehicle under Annexure P.21 to P.34.  Annexure P.35 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the O.P.no.1 and 2 with RPAD receipt under Annexure P.36 to 37.  By considering the above said documents same are not sufficient documents to come to conclusion that the complainant is entitled the amount claimed in the complaint.  Even by considering the cash receipt bills, the same does not exceeds Rs.86,860 but even in the absence of other proofs  the surveyor has assessed the damage cause to the vehicle to the extent of Rs.1,37,440/- and accordingly the complainant is entitled the said amount from the O.Ps. after deducting the processing charges.  In this regard the complainant has admitted the fact that, the O.P. has paid the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the damage caused to the said vehicle as against the say of the O.P. that, O.P. has paid Rs.1,37,440/-.  Under the circumstances we are of the view that the further claim of the complainant are not proved by him by cogent proofs by producing necessary vouchers  cash bills with other valid documents for confirming its actual cost of repairs. Therefore, in the absence of the same, we are of the view that the O.Ps. valued the loss of the vehicle by considering all aspects correctly and paid the said amount to complainant.  So in our view there is no deficiency of service in settling the claim of the complainant by the O.Ps. as contended by the complainant.  Because the complainant has not produced any other contra proofs as against the surveyor’s report which was issued by technical experts in such field.  Hence in absence any other evidences the said report produced by the O.Ps. under Annexure R.3 is acceptable document.  Therefore we are of the firm view that the complainant has not proved the point no.1 by valid documents.  Hence his further claim are not payable by the O.P.  Accordingly for reasons stated above the point No.1 is answered by us in the NEGATIVE.

10.     Point No.2

          As stated supra in the above said para and our answer to the point no.1 in the Negative, the claim of the complaint is not maintainable against the O.Ps.  Hence, the same is not answered in any manner.  Thus we proceed to pass the following order.

                                           ::ORDER::

The complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec. 12 of C.P.Act. against O.P.No.1 & 2 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Intimate the parties accordingly.

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this  26^th  day of July 2019).

Sri. Shankrappa H.                 Sri. Ashok Hanamanth Malaghan                                  

Member.                                                  President.                        

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Annexure.1 Copy of motor policy schedule cum certificate of Insurance
2. Annexure.2– Attested copy of statement of witness       

3. Annexure.3- Attested copy of panchanama
4. Annexure.4– Copy of Translation of statement and panchanama.

5. Annexure.5- Attested copy of Registration certificate.
6. Annexure.6- Copy of National Permit for Goods carrier.
7. Annexure.7. – Copy of Authorisation certificate of N.P.(Goods).
8.  Annexure.8- Copy of certificate of fitness.  
9. Annexure.9-Original copy of pollution certificate.
10. Annexure.10-Aadhar card copy of complainant(Xerox)
11. Annexure.11-Copy of particulars of new parts.
12. Annexure.12- Copy of estimation of labour charges .
13. Annexure13-Copy of Delivery Challan of New Egg world.
14. Annexure.14-Copy of To whom-so-ever it may concerned,dt.03.10.2015.
15. Annexure.15 to 20- Bills issued by guarage authority.
16. Annexure.21 to 34. Photographs of damaged vehicle.
17. Annexure.35. Copy of legal notice dt.16.03.2018
18. Annexure.36 & 37  Postal receipts.
19. Annexure.38-Postal unserved envelop addressed to O.P.no.2.

Document produced by the Opponent No.1.

1. Annexure.R.1 Copy  policy.

2. Annexure R.2 Copy of claim form.

3. Annexure R.3 Copy of Survey report.

Witness examined.

Complainant.

1. P.W.1- Farid Patel s/o Lal Patel   (Complainant )           

Opponents.

1.  R.W.1.  Sunil Ramesh S/o Ramesh  (O.P No.1. )
2. R.W.2 . S.M. Sheelwant (Surveyor )

Sri. Shankrappa H.          Sri. Ashok Hanamanth Malaghan                                   

       Member,                                          President.