Karnataka

Gadag

CC/12/2015

Sri KrishnaRao.B.Kulkarni - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.V.Grampurohith

18 Jun 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs. 

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is the owner of a two wheeler HONDA ACTIVA bearing No.KA-26 U-0851. This had been insured with OP under comprehensive policy bearing Policy No.6720023113010000 3154. The risk coverage commenced from 20.12.2013 and expires on 19.12.2014. On 09.04.2014 the Complainant met with an accident in the above said vehicle. The vehicle got repaired as per the Report of the Surveyor. The total bill for the repair was Rs.5,240/-.

 

3.      The Complainant claim the same by the OP, the OP had paid Rs.3,500/- only towards the claim. Further, the Complainant had submitted that the amount of Rs.1,740/- deducted by the OP. The OP had not given any explanation for this deduction; further complainant states that the vehicle was only four months old. Hence, the rule of depreciation is not applicable for the above said vehicle.

 

4.      Further, the Complainant states that orally the Complainant had requested the OP severally to settle the entire claim, but the OP had not done so by which the Complainant had suffered lot of mental agony.

 

5.      The Complainant issued a legal notice to the OP through his counsel which is duly served but the OP has not responded neither considered the notice. Hence this Complaint. Further, the Complainant had prayed to order the OP to pay the amount of RS.1,740/- which had been deducted in the claim of Rs.25,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation charges.

 

6.      The predecessor on the seat registered the Complaint and notice was issued to OP. The OP appeared before this Forum through his Advocate and filed his written version.

Brief facts of the Written Version of OP:

The OP had denied the contents of the Complaint, OP submits that after accident of the vehicle immediately, the OP had arranged surveyor who had assessed a loss to the tune of Rs.3,500/- on repair basis. Same had been paid by the OP on 29.04.2014, hence the OP had made no deficiency in service. Further, OP submits that without prejudice the Surveyor who is the approved surveyor and loss assessor conducted the final survey and assessed the loss on repaired basis. After deducting depreciation at 50% on rubber, Fiber glass parts and nil depreciation on metal parts since the vehicle is less than six months. Hence, the Complainant not entitled to get any relief more than Rs.3,500/-.

 

7.     Since the OP has prayed to dismiss the Complaint.

8.      On the back ground of the above said pleadings, the Complainant himself examined before this Forum as CW-1 and got marked the documents as EX C1 to C7. The documents are as follows:

1)  EX C1 Policy cum Certificate of Insurance,

2)  EX C2 Complainant Letters to OP,

3)  EX C3 Postal Receipt

4)  EX C4 Legal Notice,

5) EX C5 Post Office Letter,

6)  EX C6 Acknowledgement,

7)  EX C7 Settled Reply

 

 

 

        On the other hand, OP filed a written version along with 10 attested copies of documents are as follows:

1.   Survey Report,
2.  Final Assessment Sheet of the accident vehicle repair,
3.   Survey Bill,
4.   Xerox copy of pass book,
5. Photo copy of bike,
6. Photo copy of bike,
7. Policy Scheduled cum Certificate of Insurance,
8. Certificate of respect of Compliance,

9) Payment Voucher,

10)  Standard Form or Motorized two wheeler,

9.      On the basis of above said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant proves that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Negative,

Point No.2 – Negative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

 10.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

11.   The Complainant produced an Insurance Policy bearing No.67200231130100003154 for a vehicle HONDA ACTIVA, it discloses that the policy stands in the name of Complainant. The vehicle HONDA ACTIVA bearing No.KA-26 U-0851 met with an accident on 09.04.2014. This is a undisputed fact, the main point of controversy is that the Complainant submitted that the claim form to OP to settle the insurance amount of Rs.5,240/-, but the OP had paid only Rs.3,500/- towards the claim of the Complainant.

 

   12.      The Complainant claims that he spent Rs.5,240/- towards the repair of his vehicle, but the OP had paid only Rs.3,500/- and also Complainant has alleged that the OP have deducted the depreciation amount which is not applicable to a new vehicle, the vehicle only 04 months old.

 

   13.      The Complainant had not produced any documents/bill to prove that he has spent Rs.5,240/- towards the repair of his vehicle. Hence, it is very difficult to believe the amount spent is for which part of the vehicle. While arguing the matter the learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that the original bill had been submitted to OP with the claim form to the insurance company. The Forum asked the Complainant to produce duplicate bills for the same, but the Complainant answered that where the vehicle had been repaired not issue the duplicate bills moreover the OP had not disputed about the bill.

 

  14.       Immediately after the accident, the OP appointed the surveyor to assess the loss the surveyor M/s Chebbi S.G. approved value and surveyor in his report states that an estimation of Rs.6,465/- had been submitted by M/s Shantesh Auto Hubli for the repair of said vehicle. After the discussion repaired has been agreed for the assessment. The contents of the Survey Report are as follows:

LABOUR CHARGES

	PARTICULARS		ASSESSED RS.
1.	RH FRNT COVER DENTING		80.00
2.	RH FOOT FLOOR DENTING		50.00
3.	RH BODY COVER PAINTING LBR CHRGS		412.50
4.	RH FRNT PANEL PAINTING LBR CHRGS		412.50
5.	RH FOOT FLOOR PAINTINH LBR CHRGS		337.50
	TOTAL		1292.50
	ADD S.TAX 12.36%		159.75
	NET LABOUR CHARGES		1452.25

 

II. REPLACEMENT OF PARTS

	PARTICULARS	@ RATE	ASSESSED RS.
1.	COVER COMPBODY	1304.80
2.	COVER HANDLE RED		688.21
3.	MARK BODY COVER T		32.31
4.	COVER INNER		411.35
5.	PAINT MATERIAL		387.50
	SUB TOTAL	1304.80	1519.37
		189.19	220.30
		1493.99	1739.67
	LESS DEPRECIATION	-	869.83
	TOTAL	1493.99	869.83

 

SUMMARY

Sl. No.	PARTICULARS	ASSESSED
I	LABOUR CHARGES AS ASSESSED	1452.25
II	REPLACEMENT OF PARTS AT COST	1493.99
III	REPLACEMENT OFJ PARTS: AT 50% DEP.	869.83
	SUB TOTAL	3816.07
	LESS: EXCESS	100.00
	TOTAL	3716.07

 

Salvage are to be surrendered to the company it may fetch the value of Rs.65.07/- only.

        In column II, replacement of parts in which the surveyor had deducted 50% of deduction which had been objected by the Complainant and Complainant has stated that depreciation is not applicable to a new vehicle. The said vehicle was only 04 months old.

 

     15.    After perusing the documents and records, the terms exception and condition of policy refunded to the two wheeler u/s 1 LOSS OF OR DAMAGED TO THE VEHICLE ISSUED UNDER WHICH SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION FOR A DEPRECIATION AT THE RATES MENTIONED BELOW IN RESPECT OF PARTS REPLACE in this serial no.1 CLEARLY INDICATES FOR ALL RUBBER, NYLON, PLASTIC PARTS, TYRES AND TUBES, BATTERIES AND AIR BAGS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 50% DEPRECIATION even for a new vehicle by this it is clear that op had deducted the depreciation for the above said part only as per terms, exception and conditions of the policy.

 

    The document produced by the OP i.e. Document No.9 it discloses above points. Hence, the OP has not made any deficiency in his service. Hence, the Complainant is not liable for any other relief and hence, we answer to Point No.1 and 2 in negative. 

 

  16.     POINT NO.3: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass a following:  

 

 

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is dismissed.
2. Parties have to bear their own costs.
3. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 18^th day of June, 2016)

 

 

Member

Member

President