Date of Filing:15.12.2008<br /> Date of Order:30.09.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2699 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Azmal Pasha<br /> No. 48/12, 4th Cross<br /> B.G. Road, Bismillanagar<br /> Bangalore 560029 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Cholamandalam MS General<br /> Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> Represented by its Regional Manager<br /> No. 911, Ulsoor Road<br /> Bangalore Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No. KA 01 C 8566. On 05.03.2008 the said lorry driving by its driver Noor Ahmed, coming from Bellary to Bangalore met with an accident. As a result of which the lorry cabin was fully damaged. Chitradurga police has registered the case. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party company and the policy was valid from 09.04.2007 to 08.04.2008. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 2,11,075/-, out of that cheque for Rs. 87,479/- has been given by the opposite party. Complainant prays to award compensation of Rs. 1,23,596/- with 12% interest.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party through RPAD. Opposite party appeared through advocate and defence version filed stating that opposite party has issued a motor policy of insurance in favour of the complainant in respect of lorry bearing No. KA 01 C 8566. The liability of this opposite party company if any under the above policy is subject to the terms, conditions and exclusion of the policy and valid and effective driving license of driver in question. Opposite party after getting claim from the complainant, registered the claim and deputed M.C. Himath Kedar a registered, licensed and qualified surveyor to conduct spot survey and later deputed N.S. Amaresh a registered, licensed and qualified surveyor to conduct final survey, examine the damages and to assess loss thereon. The surveyor on detailed examination having regard to the nature of impact to the vehicle in the accident and cross checked with the dealer and considered and assessed the damages towards spare parts after depreciation and labour charges. As per the assessment made by the surveyor the opposite party paid the amount to the complainant in a sum of Rs. 87,479/- in full and final settlement of the claim and which was accepted by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service rendered by this opposite party. The amount is paid strictly following the damages, terms and conditions of the policy and allowing depreciation. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidences filed.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? <br /> 5. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant being the owner of the lorry had insured the vehicle with the opposite party. The vehicle met with accident on 05.03.2008 and a case in crime No. 122/08 for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 of IPC has been registered. The complainant has put up the claim with the opposite party for Rs. 2,11,075/-. The opposite party after assessment of damages by the surveyor had settled the claim to the tune of Rs. 87,479/- and accordingly, the amount has been paid through cheque. This fact has been clearly admitted by the complainant in his complaint. The complainant has accepted the amount from the opposite party in full and final settlement of the claim. So under these circumstances there is no question of any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced any technical opinion and expert evidence to show that the vehicle suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 2,11,075/-. It is not the case of the complainant that he has accepted the cheque for Rs. 87,479/- from the opposite party under protest and duress. He has not at all challenged or said anything in respect of the payment made by the opposite party. The complainant has not made any allegations of coercion or force made by the opposite party to accept the cheque for Rs. 87,479/-. The opposite party had appointed registered, licensed and qualified surveyor to conduct a spot survey to assess the damages and the opposite party has paid the amount to the complainant on the basis of the assessment made by the surveyor and the complainant having accepted that amount as full and final settlement of the claim now he cannot come with this complaint seeking the balance amount without their being any basis or proper proof. When the complainant has not made any allegations of force, coercion or hardship in accepting the amount settled by the opposite party how can he claim the balance amount without production of any proper proof and evidence. So under these circumstances the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER