Date of filing: 30-12-2011

                                                                                    Date of order: 21-06-2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                         CC. 365/2011

                         Dated this, the 21^st    day of    June  2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                         : MEMBER

Mohammed Ashraf, S/o. Abdul Khader,   } Complainant

R/at Menangod House, Cheroor.Po,

Chengala Village, Kasaragod Taluk.

(Adv. K.A. Lalan, Kasaragod)

The Branch Manager,                                   } Opposite party

United India Insurance Co.Ltd,

M.G.Road, Jos Junction, Ernakulam.

(Adv.C.Damodaran, Kasaragod)

                                                                        O R D E R

 SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the insurer of his vehicle  did not indemnify the actual loss sustained to this vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14G 8827 on account of hitting with a motor cycle.  According to him he had incurred `66,815/- towards the repair of the vehicle.

2.         According to opposite party the damage due to hitting on a motor cycle being minor in nature body part alone is dented as per the surveyors description. The bill for labour  charges is disproportionate and exorbitant in relation to the work and the intention of the complainant is to enrich himself out of a given situation.  The opposite party appointed IRDA licensed surveyor and passed the claim based on the report. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

3.         On the side of complainant Exts A1 to A10  marked.  Opposite party produced Exts B1 to B5. Both Counsels heard.

4.         Ext.B4 is the survey report.  As per Ext.B4 the surveyor assessed damages at  `11,670/-.

            Complainant has not produced any materials to differ from the sum assessed  by the surveyor. The bills produced by the complainant does not tally with the damages noted by the   Surveyor.  Hence the complainant is entitled only for the amount assessed by the surveyor. In the said circumstances we do  not find any reason to allow the claim of the complainant.

            Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. Photocopy of FIR

A2. Photocopy of Final Report

A3. 29-09-2012 Photocopy of final Survey Report

A4. 17-12-2010 copy of lawyer notice.

A5. 21-12-2010Reply notice

A6. Settlement Intimation Voucher.

A7.17-9-2010 copy of  cash bill

A8.16-9-2010 Photocopy of cash bill

A9. 18-09-2010 Photo copy of Tax Invoice

A10.17-09-2010 Photocopy of cash bill.

B1.Claim Intimation.

B2.Claim Form

B3. Estimate.

B4.Motor Final Survey Report.

B5. Photocopy of policy copy.

MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/