Karnataka

Gadag

CC/59/2013

Girish N Kulkarni - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurace Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.A.Pujar

22 Jan 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 facts of the case are that the Complainant is the registered owner of a vehicle INDICA Car bearing No.KA-26/M-1426 and the OP is the Insurer of the said vehicle under its policy No.472290/31/2011/715/472290/31/20/2/892, the said vehicle met with an accident on 04.04.2012 near Ron. The vehicle sustained damages in the accident which had been intimated the OP NO.2 on very next day and the Complainant got two estimations for repair of the vehicle, the Authorized Surveyor of the Ops M/s Star Surveyors inspected the vehicle on 29.05.2012 and Complainant requested to OP through letter dated: 12.07.2012 to indemnify of Rs.1,56,923/-, the OP replied to coordinate with the Surveyor to assess the loss and further the OP had directed the Complainant to get repair the vehicle and dismantle the same and submit the bills for the further process.

 

3.      The surveyor but for one or the other reasons the Complainant cannot get repair his vehicle. The OP was demanding bills often and often and the OP insisted the Complainant to dismantle the vehicle, further the Complainant alleged that the Ops putting the Complainant to the unwanted formalities.

 

4.      Further, the Complainant issued a legal notice through his counsel to OP No.2 calling him to indemnify the policy benefit and to pay the other expenses. The OP had replied by evasive stating that “NO CLAIM”. Hence, the Complainant had sought to set aside the No claim and to allow the Complaint and award reliefs as per the estimation of the Service Center or allow as per the report of the Surveyor, further Complainant had sought for mental agony, pain, suffering and cost of this litigation.  

 

5.      The predecessor on seat, registered the Complaint and notice were ordered as such OP appeared through his advocate and filed their Vakalat and written version.

Brief facts of the Written Version:

While filing the Written Version, OP had not disputed the ownership of the Complainant one vehicle in question and he has also not disputed permit, policy and validity of the policy. It is further OP also not disputed the place of the accident and inspection of the vehicle after the accident by their Surveyor.

 

6.      The OP alleged that the Complainant had submitted two separate estimations of repair from two separate Service Centres which shows vast difference and OP submitted that those are not genuine one.

 

7.      Further, OP submitted that he had informed the Complainant to start repair work, further OP submits that no claim can be settled only on the basis of estimation it is undertaken to indemnify the insured and ascertaining actual loss, the surveyor has to inspect and re-inspect the vehicle after repair and bills, repair charges are to be independently scrutinized by the Surveyor. Accordingly, the Complainant was informed through letter and personally to get repair the vehicle, which any cause/reasons the Complainant had not undertaken the repair work and allowed the OP to process the claim as per the Terms of the Contract.

 

8.      Further, OP submits that he had suitably answered to the notice issued by the Complainant, inspite of sufficient opportunities given to the Complainant, but the Complainant fails to comply the Terms and Procedures, documents. Ultimately, after issue the final opportunity the file was closed as “NO CLAIM”. As such, the act of the Op there is no fault as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the Complainant had not got repaired his vehicle and not submitted the required bills. Under these circumstances, the Complaint is premature.

 

9.      Further the OP submits that the absence of the part at performance by the Complainant, Complainant is not entitled for the relief for the reasons stated above. OP prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

 

10.    In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant himself examined as CW1 in support of the allegation the documents produced by him are Serially numbered 1 to 14. On the other hand, the Divisional Manager of the Divisional Office of OP No.1 examined before this Forum and the documents produced are Serially Number from 1 to 16.

 

11.    On pursuance of the above said pleadings, oral evidence and documentary evidence arguments followed by both the parties, the following points arise before us for adjudication of this case are hereunder:  

1.	Whether the Complaint is maintainable?
2.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Negative,

Point No.2 – As per the final order

                        R E A S O N S

 12.  POINT NO.1:  The specific case of the Complainant is that he owns INDICA Car bearing No.KA-26 M-1426 which was insured by the Company of the OP No.2 under the Policy No. 472290/31/2011/715/472290/31/20/2/892, the said vehicle met with an accident on 04.04.2012 near Ron (Basapur Cross, Navalgund Road). The vehicle sustained damages, the accident was intimated to the OP No.2 immediately after the accident. These are the undisputed facts admitted by the OP.

 

13.     The Complainant had submitted two separate estimation for the repair of the vehicle one from Manikbag Automobiles, Hubli for Rs.2,74,188/- and another estimation from Bharat Automobiles Hubli for Rs.1,57,300/-, since these two estimations shows vast difference the OP has alleged that it appears to be a not genuine one.

 

14.    The estimation issued by the respective companies are the charges of their respective Service Centres. One get the estimation from the different Companies only to see which is lowest estimation, the documents produced which are serially numbered as 2 and 11 discloses the same. The Complainant had collected the estimations from Manikbag which is Authorized Workshop of the TATA Motors which is being very high. Whereas the second estimation collected from Bharat Automobiles Hubli serially numbered as 2 is the lowest estimation.

 

  15.      On the other hand, Surveyor appointed by the OP has inspected the vehicle as pre-repaired vehicle and assess the loss to the extent of Rs.88,500/-. After perusing the documents produced by both the parties, the OP has informed the Complainant severally through the letters to get repaired the vehicle but, Complainant failed to do so and produce the repaired bills to the OP.

 

16.   Since the OP had not disputed the claim of the Complainant and admitted the at most of the facts of the Complaint and also he has never denied the claim, after perusing the documents produced by the OP which disclose that the OP had ask the Complainant to get the repaired vehicle at Bharat Automobiles Hubli and coordinate with the surveyor to conduct the final survey and to prepare the final report but the Complainant had not got repaired his vehicle and the OP had stated that the estimation submitted by the Complainant is highly disproportionate which cannot be considered for the settlement of the claim and OP also intimated the Complainant through letter dated: 27.09.2012 to get the vehicle repaired and produced the vehicle for re-inspection to the Surveyor and handover the cash bills paid for scrutiny the same.

 

     17.    Such being the facts, the OP had never denied to settle the claim, even on several letters, to get repair the vehicle the Complainant had failed to do so and also failed to produced Cash Paid Bills for the scrutiny. Without cash paid bills and without undertaking the repair of the car surveyor cannot assess the actual amount spent for the repair of the vehicle, without final report of the surveyor the OP cannot settle the claim. In these circumstances, this Complaint is premature. Hence, this Complaint is not maintainable, since we answer the Point No.1 in negative.  

 

       18.  POINT NO.2:  In the result of the above findings, we proceed to pass the following:        

//ORDER//

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

2. No order on costs.

3.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.   

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 10^th day of February, 2016)

 

Member

Member

President