BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
DATED: 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011.
PRESENT: SRI.G.V.HEGDE., President
SRI.T.NAGARAJA., Member,
SMT. K.G.SHANTALA., Member.
Consumer Complaint No. 50/2010.
Between:
Sri.M.N.Manjunatha,
S/o. M.Nanjappa,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o Karanji Extension,
Malur. …. Complainant.
( By Advocate Sri.T.V.Ramesh )
-Vs-
Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Bindu Complex,
Doomlight Circle,
Kolar.
…. Opposite Party.
( By Advocate Sri.B.Kumar & others )
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay damages of Rs.2,55,000 with interest and costs for not settling the claim towards the damages of the vehicle TATA SUMO bearing Reg. No.KA 02 C 4430.
Briefly stated the facts in a nutshell are as under :
2. That the Complainant is the owner of the TATA SUMO bearing Reg.No.KA 02 C 4430 of 2005 model and has insured the said vehicle with the opposite party for the period 20/01/09 to 19/01/10 and insured’s estimated value of Rs.2,55,000. During the policy period, on 09/11/09, the TATA SUMO met with an accident and was damaged. The Malur Police have also registered a case against the driver in Cr. No.292/09 against unknown vehicle. The complainant has on 10/11/09 informed about the same to the opposite party. Accordingly, the opposite party has deputed a surveyor M.A. Hussain for the assessment of the damages. The Prerana Motors have assessed a sum of Rs.2,87,671. The complainant has approached the opposite party to consider his claim on total loss basis and to pay I.D.V. amount. The surveyor has stated that subject vehicle repair assessment is economic to insurer and the complainant request for total loss basis is not possible as the same worked out less than 75% of the insured estimated value. That the complainant has left the vehicle with prerana motors twice and that they have assessed the loss to the vehicle as Rs.3,16,860. The complainant has requested to go according to the instructions given by the surveyor M.A.Hussain. That the complainant on 4/5/10 approached the opposite party and they have orally repudiated the claim of the complainant.
3. The OP appeared and admitted the insurance of the vehicle. As per the final survey conducted by M.A.Hussain on 12/04/10 where in the liability on repair basis is less than 75% of I.D.V. has estimated the actual damages to the TATA SUMO is to an extent of Rs.1,20,401.93 the opposite party has produced the same. The claim was discussed with the Insured, Surveyor at D.O. II, Bangalore in the presence of Divisional Manager and after long discussion the claim of the complainant for total loss is not possible. The opposite party by contending that there is no deficiency of service prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties have filed affidavit and documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
5. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the parties herein, we may notice the contract of insurance. By reason of the said contract, the insurer has made itself liable to reimburse the insured if during the period of insurance any damages to the vehicle would be liable to pay the damages either under : the law set out in the schedule or at common law.
6. On careful perusal of the entire available materials placed before us that there is extensive damage has been caused to the vehicle. Further as per the report of the surveyor the probable estimated for the repair works out to Rs. 1,20,401.93. The complainants grievance for considering the claim on total loss basis is also not possible. Further, the TATA SUMO is of the year 2005 and that till date the claim has not been settled by the opposite party. The OP has not considered the claim of the complainant till date itself suffice to come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service.
7. We have browsed the entire papers placed before us by the parties and the contentions raised by them. It appears that there is a difference between the report of the surveyor and his estimate when the same is compared with the one issued the prerana motors. Further, the complaint has taken the said vehicle twice to the prerana motors and the same has been toed and the vehicle was lying idle in the prerana motors without effecting the repairs. We are also of the view that the report of the surveyor is not final.
8. We have to make some guess work in order to arrive at the actual damage that has been caused to the complainant. Considering the damages caused to the vehicle with that of the final report of the surveyor actual damage caused to the vehicle and also the estimate furnished by the prerana motors works out to Rs.1,65,000 on repair basis.
The same is just and reasonable. Therefore, we think atleast a sum of Rs.1,65,000 in all may be awarded to the complainant towards the damages to the said vehicle. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Only) to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced in the opin Forum this the 25th day of January 2011.
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
