Karnataka

Bidar

CC/55/2014

OMKAR S/O BASAVARAJ MUGUNARE - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURENCE CO, LTD BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY PATIL

23 Jun 2016

ORDER

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

 

 

                                                                                                       C.C.No. 55/2014

 

                                                                                        Date of filing : 27/06/2014

 

                                                                                   Date of disposal : 23/06/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                 (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                  Member.

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT:-            Omkar, s/o Basawaraj Mugunare,                                                         

                                         Age: major, Occ:Business,

                                      R/o H.No.19-3-191, Pratapnagar, Naubad,

                                      Bidar.

 

 

                                      (By Shri. Sanjay Kumar S.Patil, Advocate)

 

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

 

OPPONENT/S   :-            The Branch Manager,

                                      National Insurance Company Ltd.,

                                      Annupama Complex,

                                      1^st Floor, Near Basveshwar circle,

                                      Gandhi Gunj Road, Bidar-585401.

 

 

 

 

                                     ( By Shri. Prakash V.M., Advocate)

 

                                     

                                            ::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

 

               The complainant has approached this Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and the pleadings of the complaint are as follows:

 2.         That the complainant was the owner of Tata Indica Vista Car bg.no. KA38- M 1803 for which, he had obtained a comprehensive insurance policy bg.no.604003/31/12/6100001004 and the policy was valid from      29-05-2012 to 28-05-2013.  On 06-11-2012 at 13.45 hours while the car was proceeding towards Bhalki Taluka along Halbarga Ambesingvi road, near Tegampur village a lorry bg. Registration no. MH19/J483 came from behind and dashed against the car for which, extensive damages were caused to the hind portion of the car.  The driver of the car by name Sri.Basawaraj s/o Sharnappa who was holding a valid driving licence lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Dhannur Police Station against the lorry driver as a consequence of which, crime no.173/2012 alleging offences under section 279 and 337 IPC was registered.

3.            It is the say of the complainant that he had informed the O.P. insurance company on 06-11-2012 itself as a result of which a surveyor by name Sri.Vijaykumar Patil was deputed to assess the damages.  After the surveyor’s inspection the damaged car was kept at the disposal of a workshop captioned as  Md. Sharafat Khan Car Body Works at Bidar and the total estimated cost of repair was assessed at Rs. 74,400/-.  It is evident from the report of the surveyor that he had made the first visit on 16-11-2012 and also on subsequent dates.  The insurance company on the receipt of the claim had remitted a sum of Rs. 21,076/- towards the damages which is not disputed by the complainant.  Being aggrieved by the lesser payment, the complainant is before this Forum.

4.     The O.P. Insurance company on receipt of notice had put up appearance through a counsel and has submitted his version denying the claims of the complainant.  The O.P. insurance company in para no.3 of the version claims that  the O.P.  had received the claim form only on             20-01-2013 after which, they have engaged the surveyor and as per the surveyor’s assessment had remitted the sum of Rs. 21,076/- towards the satisfaction of the claim.  Both side have filed their respective evidence affidavits, written arguments and documents as listed at the end of this order and have struck to their respective averments.  The complainant side further placed before us two Judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in (2003) CJ 625 and (2004) CJ 161 ) in furtherance of his demands.

5.           Considering the rival claims of the parties concerned the following points arise for our consideration.

1.  Does the complainant prove that, the O.P. insurance company has caused deficiency in services in reality?
2.  Was the O.P. justified in settling claims at a sum of Rs. 21,076?
3. What orders ?

6.          Our findings to the above points are as under:

             1.   In the affirmative.

             2.   In the negative .

             3.  As per the final orders due to the following:

 

                                                :: R E A S O N S : :

 

7.         The point no.1 and 2 are interwined closely together and we propose to deal with both of them at a time.

                It is not in dispute that the Tata Indica Vista Car  which was under a valid insurance cover on the date of accident i.e. on 06-11-2012 had met with a severe accident and as consequence thereof sustained extensive damage at the hind portion of the car.  The O.P. insurance company has submitted the copy of the insurance policy vide Ex.P.4, from which, it is evident that the I.D.V. of the vehicle was declared at Rs. 2,82,353/- which was accepted by the insurance company without demur.  For strange reasons in the final survey report the surveyor but has mentioned the I.D.V. as           Rs. 3,29,412/-(sic).  While the insurer claim in the version to have received the claim for damages on 20-01-2013 and thereafter had engaged the surveyor, from the survey report itself it is evident that the surveyor had conducted inspection first time on 16-11-2012 and had made subsequent visits.   Hence the claim of the O.P. appears to be a blatant lie. By that time the damaged vehicle was with the repairing work shop and  the surveyor had enough scope to dispute the assessment of damages and the repair charges estimated by the workshop.  But either from the surveyor’s report or from any other document submitted by the insurance company it is not forthcoming that, at any point of time any protest was made regarding estimated figure of repair.  It does not augur well in the part of the insurance company which is a nationalised organisation to induce belief in the mind of the complainant to go ahead with repair works and thereafter slashing the repair charges  all most by 30% of the original estimate.

8.             We have gone through the details of the survey report filed by the surveyor.  It appears that the surveyor had made an assessment by reducing the figure of estimate very unscientifically without any justifiable reasons.  The original assessment of the work-shop appears to be quite reasonable and there was no justification on the part of the surveyor to make an un- wholly scissor cut in the estimate. 

 

9.           We also see the ratio of the Judgments rendered of the Hon’ble National Commission as stated supra and in the second Judgment i.e. ( 2014 CJ 161) the attempts of the insurance company in appointing surveyor to obtain a tailor made report to the satisfaction of insurer has been decried.  We are in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission and answer the point no. 1 and 2  accordingly.

 

10.        Coming to the claim of the complainant that an amount of Rs.2,35,000/- has been spent for repair in all we are of the opinion that, it  is quite exaggerated.  In para no.9 of the complaint the complainant has claimed that he had spent a sum of   Rs.83,000/- towards the repair of the Car for which there is no basis.  He has further claimed that he had spent a sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards cost of oil for which also there is not scrap of paper submitted.  The complainant has further claimed a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of business over a period of 3 months as damages.  In two farfetching Judgment reported in 2008 CTJ 561 ( Supreme Court ) and 2009 CTJ 535 N.C. the higher Courts have been pleased to hold that  “ Consumer Court can award compensation for deficiency of service,  for recovery of loss complainant has to approach a civil Court”.  We are in respectful in the agreement with the Judgments quoted above and hence negate the claim of Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of business.  The further claim of the complainant that of a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards towing  charges also has to be negated as the claimant has not submitted any evidence to that effect.  In all  the complainant is only entitled the estimated cost of repair together with a reasonable compensation and litigation charges for which, we pass the following:

 

: :   ORDER : :

 

              For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 12 of  Consumer Protection Act. 1986, is hereby allowed partly with costs against O.P.

 

1.   The O.P. is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 74,400/- as per

the estimate of the workshop together with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the 

date of accident till the date of realisation.

 

2.  A sum of Rs. 21,076 already paid by the insurance company

would be set off against the total claim.

 

3. The O.P. insurance company is further directed to pay a sum of

Rs.10,000/- as compensation together with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

            (d )  Four weeks time is granted to comply this order.

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 23^rd  day of June-2016 )

 

 

                        Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                

           Member                                                                         President

Documents filed by the complainant.

 

1. Ex.P.1- FIR in crime no.173/2012 of Dhannur P.S.
2. Ex.P.2- Estimate of damages to the car.
3. Ex.P.3- R.C. Book of Indica Vista Car.  
4. Ex.P.4- D.L. of Shri. Sharnappa s/o Basavaraj.  
5. Ex.P.5- Portion of Insurance Policy.
6. Ex.P.6-Protest letter of the complainant,Dt.28-11-2013.

 

 

Documents filed by the Opponent.

 

1. Ex.R.1-Final survey report.
2. Ex.R.2- Accounts statement of S.B.I.
3. Ex.R.3-Payment details of  insurance company.
4. Ex.R.4- Insurance policy bg.no. 604003/31/12/61/00001004.

 

                        Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

      Sri. Shankrappa H.                                                                            Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                

             Member                                                                                                 President