Date of Filing: 08.12.2009<br /> Date of Order: 28.04.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2010<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: 2887 OF 2009<br /> V. Balu<br /> R/at No. 24, 1st Main, 3rd Cross<br /> Mahalakshmi Tooring Talkies<br /> Ganesh Block, Mahalakshmi Layout<br /> Bangalore Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> The Divisional Manager<br /> The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.<br /> Door No. 12, Rajajinagar<br /> Bangalore 560 010 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 complainant is the registered owner of TATA sumo vehicle KA 02 N 2257. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party and the policy is valid from 09.09.2005 to 08.09.2006. The said vehicle met with accident on 17.07.2006. The FIR was registered by the police. Mahazar was prepared. The complainant made representation to opposite party to take action for assessment of damages caused to the vehicle. The opposite party kept quite for a period of 1 ½ year. Again on 09.04.2009 complainant made another representation to the opposite party to take necessary action for release of claim amount of the vehicle. He has submitted all the relevant documents. Complainant requested the authorised mechanic to assess damage of the vehicle and he assessed damage to the tune of Rs. 4,35,505/-. After that complainant submitted assessment of damage to the opposite party. Opposite party has not taken any steps to release the amount, thereby it has committed deficiency of service. Even after several requests the opposite party did not turn up to settle the damages. Hence, the complainant has approached this Hon’ble forum for relief. <br /> 2. Opposite party filed version stating that it is true that the vehicle No. KA 02 N 2257 has been insured with the opposite party and the policy was valid from 09.09.2005 to 08.09.2006. Complainant while insuring has declared the value of the vehicle at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Complainant has not made any representations to the opposite party for assessment of damages. Opposite party has not received any written communication from the complainant. Complainant had approached the opposite party with a request to issue claim form on 14.12.2006, after lapse of six months from the date of accident. Opposite party had issued claim form with a request to the complainant to submit RC book, DL, Estimate, FIR, IMV Report, Charge sheet, Mahazar etc. for settlement of claim. On 26.10.2007 complainant had written a letter for issue of another claim form. The complainant submitted estimate for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 02.11.2007. Motor Vehicle Accident Report was submitted by the complainant. Charge sheet is also submitted. Complainant did not submit estimate till today. The alleged assessment of damage for Rs. 4,38,505/- has denied. Complainant has not submitted the details with regard to assessment of damage. Claim of the complainant after lapse of six months is not maintainable. Claim value of the vehicle is Rs. 1,50,000/-. The said value has to be considered as market value of the vehicle. The claim has to be settled based on the terms and conditions of the policy after applying the depreciation. For all these reasons stated above opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidences and documents.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed? If so what is the quantum of amount?<br /> 6. The complainant is the owner of TATA Sumo vehicle. There is no dispute that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party and the policy was valid from 09.09.2005 to 08.09.2006. The vehicle met with accident on 17.07.2006. To that effect the complainant has produced FIR registered by the police punishable under section 154 Cr. P.C. The complainant has submitted letter of Senior Divisional Manager dated 13.12.2006 wherein the Senior Divisional Manager requested P. Krishna Murthy, Insurance Surveyor to attend the spot survey of the vehicle and requested to handover the survey report to DO 12, Rajajinagar, Bangalore and Senior Divisional Manager in the letter also submitted that he is enclosing the complainant’s letter requesting for the spot survey and copy of policy also sent. It is also made clear that after spot survey the complainant intends to shift the vehicle to Bangalore for final assessment of loss. As per the letter of Senior Divisional Manager it is clear that complainant has requested the opposite party for spot survey and the Senior Divisional Manager asked the Insurance Surveyor for conducting survey and to assess the damage. Complainant has produced Motor Claim Form. He has also submitted a letter to opposite party requesting to settle the claim. Again on 09.04.2009 he has requested the opposite party to settle the claim. The complainant has produced estimate of damage which is for Rs. 4,38,505/-. The opposite party has produced copy of policy. The declared value of the vehicle is Rs. 1,50,000/-. Opposite party in the version clearly having admitted the fact that vehicle had been insured with them and value of the vehicle is Rs. 1,50,000/- and that should be taken as market value of the vehicle and the claim shall have to be settled based on the terms and conditions of the policy. As regards the payment of declared value there is no dispute. It would be just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- subject to depreciation as per policy terms and conditions. The opposite party shall not take any objections as regards payment of IDV since the motor met with accident during policy period. It is duty and obligation on the part of the opposite party to honour the commitment and promise. Therefore, the opposite party is bound to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant subject to depreciation. Therefore, it is just, fair and reasonable to deduct 20% towards depreciation in the IDV. After deducting this depreciation the net amount payable to the complainant will be Rs. 1,20,000/-. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order the above amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment / realisation.<br /> 8. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />