IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELGAUM.
Dated this 6th day of September 2016
Complaint No.463/2013
Present: 1) Shri. B.V.Gudli President
2) Sri. V.S. Gotakhindi, Member.
3) Smt.Sunita, Member
Complainant: Shri. Vithal S/o. Mallappa Giraddi,
Age : 44 years, Occ : Business,
R/o: 19th Cross, Vidyanagar, Bagalkot.
(By Sri. B.D.Patil, Advocate).
Opponent: The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
1568, Seetha Smriti, Maruti Galli,
Belgaum.
(By Sri. V.D.Kalyanshetty, Advocate).
(Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President).
ORDER
The complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service of non settlement and non payment of claim in respect of the damage caused to Tata Indica Car.
2) After service of notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed objections to the main petition.
3) In support of the claim in the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced certain documents. The OP filed affidavit.
4) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP and perused the records.
5) Now the point for our consideration is that, whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and entitled to the reliefs sought?
6) Finding on the point is in Negative, for the following reasons.
REASONS
7) The complainant claims that his vehicle KA-29/A-4022 was insured with the O.P. as mentioned in detail in 2nd paragraph of the complaint. The complainant further alleges that on 05/05/2012 the vehicle met with an accident and in the accident vehicle was damaged and was brought to the Tata Motors authorized workshop at Bagalkot and estimation was done and claim was submitted but the O.P. sent an amount of Rs.16,366/- through cheque and there is still due of Rs.14,432/- and the complainant approached the OP several times for the payment of balance amount, but the OP did not settled the entire claim amount as per bills submitted. The complainant further alleged that the Sai Motors have charged Rs.30,798/- as repair bills under invoice no.BA-1213-00512 dtd.18.05.2012.
8) On the other had OP filed objection to the main petition contending that as the accident took place near Tungal village in Jamkhandi Taluka, hence claim is not tenable before the Hon’ble Forum for want of jurisdiction and deserves to be dismissed. The OP further contends that the alleged vehicle of Tata Indica Car is a commercial vehicle used to carry the passengers and insured with OP and insurance is admitted subject to terms and conditions of the policy and as the complainant has satisfied with the claim in consonance with the final survey report and bills check report dtd.26.05.2012 submitted by licensed surveyor and assessor at Bagalkot and OP paid Rs.16,700/- by way of cheque towards full and final settlement of claim and the OP is not liable to pay Rs.30,789/- as per the tax invoice submitted by the complainant. The OP further contends that it is true that the complainant sent a claim form to the OP, but estimate cost of repair claimed under form is Rs.55,356/- and company cannot pay as per the claim of the complainant and after obtaining the final report by the company the said surveyor surveyed at Rs.19,223-34 ps and OP deducted the amount towards salvage, penalty and paid Rs.16,700/- as full and final settlement to the complainant. The OP further submits that it is false that the OP postponed the settlement claim and false that complainant approached many times for the balance claim amount and false that the OP put to loss and inconvenienced to the complainant and false that for the notice issued by the complainant the OP gave false and frivolous reply and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9) We have gone through the documents submitted by the complainant and also the allegations and contention of the complainant and OP. The point raised by the OP is the vehicle is used for commercial purpose to carry the passengers and moreover as per the final survey report the OP after considering the report settled the claim of the complainant for Rs.16,366/- and the complainant has received the same. The claim of the complainant is that as per the bills submitted to the OP, the OP has to pay Rs.14,432/-, the remaining claim amount. The point here to be noted is that neither in the complaint nor in the affidavit of the complainant it has been stated that the complainant has received the amount under protest, nor any documents are putforth before the forum to show that the amount so received through cheque was under protest. As per the survey conducted by the OP the surveyor has submitted the total loss after assessing approximately to a tune of Rs.19,223/- and the OP has paid Rs.16,366/- which in our opinion is proper. Moreover as per the contention of the OP that the vehicle was used for carrying passengers for commercial purpose and this forum has no jurisdiction has to be accepted, because nowhere in the complaint nor in the affidavit filed by the complainant, has mentioned that the vehicle was for their livelihood and not for commercial purpose. Therefore as the complainant has received the amount without protest as full and final settlement from the OP, the complainant at the later stage cannot claim the balance amount. Hence the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of OP.
10) At the out set, the complainant has not produced the policy or its copy. Most importantly, absolutely there is nothing on record whether the complainant had reported accident to the O.P. immediately thereafter as required. In the case on hand immediately after submitting claim by the complainant the OP has settled the claim and paid the amount as full and final settlement.
11) Thus, under these circumstances, prima facie, the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of O.P.
12) With these observations following order.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 6th day of September 2016).
Member Member President.
msr*
