CC Filed on 24.05.2008<br /> Disposed on 23.10.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 23rd day of October 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.46/2008<br /> <br /> Smt. Umadevi,<br /> W/o Renukaradhya,<br /> Hindu, Aged about 40 years,<br /> R/at No.440, Kora Village,<br /> Kora Hobli,<br /> Tumkur Taluk & District. …Complainant <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. N.Madhusudhan & Others) <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Branch Manager,<br /> New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> II floor, Bagalur Mansion,<br /> Big Bazaar, Kolar Town,<br /> Karnataka State. …Opposite Party<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.Kumar) <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the balance insurance claim in respect of first motor accident dated 19/20.06.2006 and another sum of Rs.1,00,000 towards the non settlement of insurance claim towards the second motor accident dated 1/2.08.2006 along with interest and cost etc., <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.46/2008<br /> 2. The material facts of the case may be stated as follows: That the complainant is the owner and RC holder of the Tata 407 goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-07 4956 and the said vehicle was comprehensively insured with OP for the period from 18.04.2006 to 17.04.2007 by paying premium of Rs.9,970/-.<br /> <br /> The said vehicle met with accident on the night of 19/20.06.2006 at about 2.00 a.m. near Yadahalli Gate on NH-4 Tumkur-Bangalore Road and sustained heavy damage. Immediately thereafter the complainant informed the same to concerned police and also the OP. One T.T.Ravishankar surveyor visited workshop and inspected the damaged vehicle on 28.06.2006. <br /> <br /> Soon after repair of the said vehicle when it was again taken on road, it met with another accident on 1/02.08.2006 at about 1.00 a.m. on NH-4 Tumkur-Bangalore Road near Makali village in Nelmangala Taluk. The accident was reported to police as well as the OP. One Yogananda surveyor was appointed to inspect the vehicle and he inspected it on 10.08.2006 at workshop where the vehicle was left for the repairs. <br /> <br /> The OP paid only Rs.41,648/- on 30.03.2007 in respect of the claim towards 1st accident and has not settled the claim towards 2nd accident on untenable grounds. <br /> <br /> 3. The OP appeared and contested the claim, contending that in respect of the claim towards 1st accident the amount of Rs.41,648/- is paid in full settlement of the claim and the complainant has issued discharge certificate and further contending that the complainant has failed to return the salvage inspite of intimation thereby the claim in <br /> <br /> CC No.46/2008<br /> respect of 2nd accident is still pending. Therefore it contended that there is no deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed documents and affidavits. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration: <br /> <br /> 1. What should have been the compensation towards 1st accident?<br /> 2. What should have been the compensation for 2nd accident?<br /> 3. Whether there is deficiency in service by OP?<br /> 4. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the records and submission of parties our findings are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: The surveyor T.T.Ravishankar has given his summary of assessment as follows: <br /> a. Labour Charges Rs.10,050/-<br /> b. Total costs of spare parts Rs.64,835/-<br /> c. depreciation Rs. 7,141/-<br /> d. Policy excess Rs. 500/- <br /> e. Salvage value (approx) Rs. 8,000/- <br /> <br /> Therefore the surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.67,244/- without deducting the salvage value. The surveyor had taken into consideration the percentage of depreciation as agreed on different kinds of parts.<br /> <br /> The OP in its final assessment deducted 20% of the estimated value of spare parts alleging that the bills were of local garage. It estimated labour charges at Rs.9,050/- and estimated value of salvage at Rs.10,000/-. Therefore after deducting the salvage value, it came to the conclusion that the net amount payable is Rs.41,648/-. We think there is <br /> CC No.46/2008<br /> no basis for reducing the claim as estimated by surveyor. If the OP wants to differ from the estimation of its own surveyor, it should give proper reason for it. But it failed to give any acceptable reason. Admittedly the salvage in respect of 1st accident is not returned to OP by complainant. The amount of salvage estimated by surveyor may be deducted out of the net loss assessed by him. Therefore the net amount payable by OP in respect of the claim towards 1st accident should have been Rs.59,244/- instead of Rs.41,648/- as estimated by OP. The balance payable is Rs.17,596/-. Point No.1 is held accordingly.<br /> <br /> Point No.2: The summary of assessment by the surveyor in respect of 2nd accident is as follows:<br /> a. Net labour charge Rs.7,950/-<br /> b. Net costs of spare parts after deducting <br /> depreciation Rs.53,183/-<br /> c. Policy excess Rs. 1,000/-<br /> d. Towing charge Rs. 2,500/- <br /> e. Salvage value Rs. 4,000/-<br /> <br /> From the above figures stated by surveyor it can be said that after deducting the value of salvage the net amount payable comes to Rs.58,633/- in respect of 2nd accident. Point No.2 is held accordingly.<br /> <br /> Point No.3: In respect of 1st accident the OP contended that the complainant had issued full and final settlement voucher agreeing to accept the amount offered in full satisfaction of the claim. The complainant has alleged that the said voucher was taken by misrepresentation and fraud and it does not bind on her. As already noted the estimation of OP is incorrect. In the circumstance of the case we have to hold that the said discharge voucher does not estop the complainant from claiming the further amount. In respect of 2nd accident if the salvage was not returned the value of it could have been deducted <br /> <br /> CC No.46/2008<br /> and the balance should have been tendered. The 2nd survey report was received by OP in the end of third week of September 2006. The complaint was filed on 24.05.2008. Earlier a legal notice was also issued on 01.08.2007. Hence we hold point No.3 in affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.4: For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite party shall pay in all Rs.76,229/- (Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine only) to complainant with interest at 6% per annum from 01.10.2006 till the date of realization within 45 days from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 23rd day of October 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />