The Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd. V/S Krishna S/o Mahadevappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/11

Krishna S/o Mahadevappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.T.Reddy

16 Sep 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/11

Krishna S/o Mahadevappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. Krishna S/o Mahadevappa

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. The Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. G.T.Reddy

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. T Keshavachary

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Krishna against the Respondent- Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the registered owner of Indica Car bearing No. KA-32/MA 1499 with Respondent under policy No. 240200/31/07/00004501 for a period from 24-03-08 to 23-03-09. On 28-08-08 vehicle had met with an accident while it was flying on road and fully damaged. At that time one Syed Zia-ul-Haq was driving the said vehicle. The same was intimated to the Respondent through letter dt. 19-12-08. After the accident the complainant completed all formalities to claim insurance from Respondent and submitted all documents along with proposed estimation cost of repairs to the tune of Rs. 1,29,000/- and also submitted relevant bills, cash memo, repairs charges, serving charges etc., to the Respondent. It is the case of the complainant that the Respondent without going through the estimated cost, actual cost, bills, service charges submitted by the complainant straightaway sent a cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000/- vide cheque No. 490612 dt. 19-12-08 of ING Vysya Bank, Raichur, but same was received by the complainant under protest. The complainant has incurred in all Rs. 1,29,418/- to repair the car in-question but the Insurance Company has paid only Rs. 30,000/- this is nothing but an unfair trade practice by the company. With this act of the Respondent the complainant has suffered much mental torture, loss of status financial burden un-necessary miscellaneous. The complainant has made several efforts to pay the amount of Rs. 1,29,418/- which was incurred by him but all went in vain. The Respondent arranged for survey of damages to the vehicle in question accordingly the surveyor conducted survey and submitted his report. On believing the report of the surveyor the company has restricted the claim only to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and the complainant repeatedly requested the Respondents to reimburse the repair expenses. But the Respondents dragged on the matter on one or the other pretext. The Respondents did not settle the claim without any valid reasons. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents for not satisfying the loss incurred by him. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondent to pay Rs. 1,29,418/- towards damage of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture, financial burden suffered by the complainant due to the negligence and unfair trade practice committed by the Respondent with heavy interest and penalty. 2. The Respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement contending that the Respondent assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- on the basis of the survey report and on the basis of re-inspection conducted by the surveyor. The complainant has not at all lodged the complaint to the concerned police station regarding the accident as such the complaint is not entitled to receive any compensation. Further it is the case of the Respondent that the complainant has given his consent to receive the claim of damage of Rs. 30,000/- by way of signing his signature on the voucher of the Respondent Company and no way the complaint has written as under protest in the said voucher. Hence there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to receive the claim of Rs. 1,29,418/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture, financial burden etc., Hence for all these reasons the Respondent has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. In-rebuttal the Respondent has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (3) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Respondent in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant Krishna is the owner and RC Holder of TATA INDICA CAR bearing NO. KA-32/MA 1499 and it was insured with Respondent Company under insurance policy No. 240200/31/07/00004501 for a period from 24-03-08 to 23-03-09. It is the case of the complainant that on 28-08-08 vehicle had met with an accident while it was flying on road and fully damaged. At that time one Syed Zia-ul-Haq was driving the said vehicle. The same was intimated to the Respondent through letter dt. 19-12-08. After the accident the complainant completed all formalities to claim insurance from Respondent and submitted all documents along with proposed estimation cost of repairs to the tune of Rs. 1,29,000/- and also submitted relevant bills, cash memo, repairs charges, serving charges etc., to the Respondent. 7. It is the case of the Respondent that surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. On the basis of the survey report and on the basis of re-inspection conducted by the surveyor Respondent paid Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant and same was accepted by him without any under protest. 8. The complainant has produced in all (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 namely (1) Original Policy Bond No. 240200 at Ex.P-1, (2) Original cash Bill (Receipt) at Ex.P-2 (3) Carbon copy of petitioner letter dt. 19-12-08 at Ex.P-3, (4) Original reply letter of Respondent dt. 29-12-08 at Ex.P-4, (5) Original courier service at Ex.P-5, (6) Copy of driving licence at Ex.P-6, (7) Photo copy of cheque dt. 19-12-08 at Ex.P-7, (8) Photo copies of bills (in all 14) which are marked at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-8(13), (9) R.C. Book at Ex.P-9. 9. The Respondent company surveyor one Maheboob Hussain, has submitted his report and same has been placed before this Forum which is marked at Ex.R-1. On perusal of said Ex.R-1 the final survey report it appears that the surveyor has assessed and reported that the total net loss towards damage of the vehicle is as Rs. 44,000/-. But in the same report he has estimated the loss of the vehicle as Rs. 1,43,907/- further he has submitted that the vehicle in question is of 2003 and it is of 4th & 5th year old age group on the day of accident and 35% depreciation on metal parts and 50% depreciation on rubber, fiber and minor parts were taken into consideration. Apart from this survey report the Respondent has submitted another two survey reports of same surveyor under Ex.R-2 & Ex.R-3, on perusal of Ex.R-2 it appears that the net loss is as Rs. 42,990/-. These two reports are quite contrary to each other. On the basis of the surveyor report i.e, Ex.R-1 the Respondent company has settled the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and same has been explained in Ex.P-4, as per the Ex.P-4 the Op has arrived to net loss for Rs. 30,000/- after deducting depreciation policy excess etc., This act of the Respondent is totally against to the claim of the complainant because the Respondent in his own letter dt. 29-12-08 i.e, Ex.P-4 admits that the complainant has produced a bill for Rs. 94,589/- in order to get the repair of the vehicle and further he submits through that letter that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,43,000/-. From this it is very clear that the Op has totally relied upon the report submitted by the surveyor and settled the claim of the complainant only to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant has produced bills under Ex. P-8 to Ex.P-8(13) in respect of repair of the vehicle towards cost of the materials and towards labour charges etc.,, in all the said cash bill discloses Rs. 1,29,368/- for the repair of the damaged vehicle. This goes to shows that the bills which are submitted by the complainant and the assessment made by the surveyor are totally different. There is a lot of difference in the amount between these two, the bills which are submitted by the complainant are clearly goes to shows that the complainant has spent in all Rs. 1,29,000/- and odd. Hence we cannot believe that the reports submitted by the surveyor is proper one and as they are contrary to each other. No doubt the Ex. R- 1 & 2 are the survey reports which are cogent and valid documents on which the total loss can be ascertained. But in order to come to the conclusion regarding the total loss of the damages, The survey report is to be supported by proper evidence by way of affidavit of the surveyor here in this case the surveyor has submitted different reports but OP has not explained how he has assessed the loss by way of evidence of the surveyor before this Forum. Under these circumstances we have not considered the report submitted by the surveyor as proper one in order to consider about the loss of the vehicle. In this regard, we have referred the ruling submitted by the complainant, cited in 2002 CPJ II Page No. 420. wherein the Karnataka Honble State Commission has held in Aghana Aqua Farms V/s. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., case wherein it has held that the survey report should be supported by the affidavit of surveyor for its evidentiary value. In the absence of the affidavit it holds no evidentiary value. Under these circumstances we hold that ruling submitted by the complainant is of our Honble State Commission as it is applicable to the instant case of the complainant. So we have considered and accepted the bills submitted by the complainant. Hence we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to claim to the tune of Rs. 1,29,368/- towards the damage of the vehicle. But the Respondent in order to settle the claim he has paid only Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 1,29,368/- this is nothing but an deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the Respondent. 10. The Respondent in his written version as contended that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has not lodged any complaint before the concerned police station. The Respondent has sent Rs. 30,000/- cheque i.e, Ex. P-7 towards the claim of the complainant regarding vehicle damage is concerned, in respect of the same accident. The Respondent has also not raised any objection in this regard earlier for settling the claim of the complainant and before sending Rs. 30,000/- amount to the complainant. Under these circumstances the above contentions of Respondent hold no good. Hence in the above circumstances, we hold that the complainant has proved his case against the Respondent. So point No.-1 is answered in affirmative. Further he estimated to receive interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. POINT NO.2:- 11. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 1,29,418/- along with interest and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture financial burden etc., but as per the Ex.P-7 it is very clear that the complainant has received Rs. 30,000/- from the Respondent. Hence after deducting the said amount now he is entitled to receive only to the tune of Rs. 99,368/- only. As regards to the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture, financial burden is concerned, the claim of the complaint in this regard is excessive and exorbitant one. Hence we have feel it is just and proper to award Rs. 2,500/- in this regard. POINT NO.3:- 12. In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 1,01,868/-which is rounded to Rs. 1,01,800/- from the Respondent. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 1,01,800/- from the date of the judgement till realization of the full amount. The Respondent has to comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-08-09.) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Krishna against the Respondent- Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the registered owner of Indica Car bearing No. KA-32/MA 1499 with Respondent under policy No. 240200/31/07/00004501 for a period from 24-03-08 to 23-03-09. On 28-08-08 vehicle had met with an accident while it was flying on road and fully damaged. At that time one Syed Zia-ul-Haq was driving the said vehicle. The same was intimated to the Respondent through letter dt. 19-12-08. After the accident the complainant completed all formalities to claim insurance from Respondent and submitted all documents along with proposed estimation cost of repairs to the tune of Rs. 1,29,000/- and also submitted relevant bills, cash memo, repairs charges, serving charges etc., to the Respondent. It is the case of the complainant that the Respondent without going through the estimated cost, actual cost, bills, service charges submitted by the complainant straightaway sent a cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000/- vide cheque No. 490612 dt. 19-12-08 of ING Vysya Bank, Raichur, but same was received by the complainant under protest. The complainant has incurred in all Rs. 1,29,418/- to repair the car in-question but the Insurance Company has paid only Rs. 30,000/- this is nothing but an unfair trade practice by the company. With this act of the Respondent the complainant has suffered much mental torture, loss of status financial burden un-necessary miscellaneous. The complainant has made several efforts to pay the amount of Rs. 1,29,418/- which was incurred by him but all went in vain. The Respondent arranged for survey of damages to the vehicle in question accordingly the surveyor conducted survey and submitted his report. On believing the report of the surveyor the company has restricted the claim only to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and the complainant repeatedly requested the Respondents to reimburse the repair expenses. But the Respondents dragged on the matter on one or the other pretext. The Respondents did not settle the claim without any valid reasons. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents for not satisfying the loss incurred by him. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondent to pay Rs. 1,29,418/- towards damage of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture, financial burden suffered by the complainant due to the negligence and unfair trade practice committed by the Respondent with heavy interest and penalty. 2. The Respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement contending that the Respondent assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- on the basis of the survey report and on the basis of re-inspection conducted by the surveyor. The complainant has not at all lodged the complaint to the concerned police station regarding the accident as such the complaint is not entitled to receive any compensation. Further it is the case of the Respondent that the complainant has given his consent to receive the claim of damage of Rs. 30,000/- by way of signing his signature on the voucher of the Respondent Company and no way the complaint has written as under protest in the said voucher. Hence there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to receive the claim of Rs. 1,29,418/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture, financial burden etc., Hence for all these reasons the Respondent has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. In-rebuttal the Respondent has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (3) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Respondent in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant Krishna is the owner and RC Holder of TATA INDICA CAR bearing NO. KA-32/MA 1499 and it was insured with Respondent Company under insurance policy No. 240200/31/07/00004501 for a period from 24-03-08 to 23-03-09. It is the case of the complainant that on 28-08-08 vehicle had met with an accident while it was flying on road and fully damaged. At that time one Syed Zia-ul-Haq was driving the said vehicle. The same was intimated to the Respondent through letter dt. 19-12-08. After the accident the complainant completed all formalities to claim insurance from Respondent and submitted all documents along with proposed estimation cost of repairs to the tune of Rs. 1,29,000/- and also submitted relevant bills, cash memo, repairs charges, serving charges etc., to the Respondent. 7. It is the case of the Respondent that surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. On the basis of the survey report and on the basis of re-inspection conducted by the surveyor Respondent paid Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant and same was accepted by him without any under protest. 8. The complainant has produced in all (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 namely (1) Original Policy Bond No. 240200 at Ex.P-1, (2) Original cash Bill (Receipt) at Ex.P-2 (3) Carbon copy of petitioner letter dt. 19-12-08 at Ex.P-3, (4) Original reply letter of Respondent dt. 29-12-08 at Ex.P-4, (5) Original courier service at Ex.P-5, (6) Copy of driving licence at Ex.P-6, (7) Photo copy of cheque dt. 19-12-08 at Ex.P-7, (8) Photo copies of bills (in all 14) which are marked at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-8(13), (9) R.C. Book at Ex.P-9. 9. The Respondent company surveyor one Maheboob Hussain, has submitted his report and same has been placed before this Forum which is marked at Ex.R-1. On perusal of said Ex.R-1 the final survey report it appears that the surveyor has assessed and reported that the total net loss towards damage of the vehicle is as Rs. 44,000/-. But in the same report he has estimated the loss of the vehicle as Rs. 1,43,907/- further he has submitted that the vehicle in question is of 2003 and it is of 4th & 5th year old age group on the day of accident and 35% depreciation on metal parts and 50% depreciation on rubber, fiber and minor parts were taken into consideration. Apart from this survey report the Respondent has submitted another two survey reports of same surveyor under Ex.R-2 & Ex.R-3, on perusal of Ex.R-2 it appears that the net loss is as Rs. 42,990/-. These two reports are quite contrary to each other. On the basis of the surveyor report i.e, Ex.R-1 the Respondent company has settled the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and same has been explained in Ex.P-4, as per the Ex.P-4 the Op has arrived to net loss for Rs. 30,000/- after deducting depreciation policy excess etc., This act of the Respondent is totally against to the claim of the complainant because the Respondent in his own letter dt. 29-12-08 i.e, Ex.P-4 admits that the complainant has produced a bill for Rs. 94,589/- in order to get the repair of the vehicle and further he submits through that letter that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,43,000/-. From this it is very clear that the Op has totally relied upon the report submitted by the surveyor and settled the claim of the complainant only to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant has produced bills under Ex. P-8 to Ex.P-8(13) in respect of repair of the vehicle towards cost of the materials and towards labour charges etc.,, in all the said cash bill discloses Rs. 1,29,368/- for the repair of the damaged vehicle. This goes to shows that the bills which are submitted by the complainant and the assessment made by the surveyor are totally different. There is a lot of difference in the amount between these two, the bills which are submitted by the complainant are clearly goes to shows that the complainant has spent in all Rs. 1,29,000/- and odd. Hence we cannot believe that the reports submitted by the surveyor is proper one and as they are contrary to each other. No doubt the Ex. R- 1 & 2 are the survey reports which are cogent and valid documents on which the total loss can be ascertained. But in order to come to the conclusion regarding the total loss of the damages, The survey report is to be supported by proper evidence by way of affidavit of the surveyor here in this case the surveyor has submitted different reports but OP has not explained how he has assessed the loss by way of evidence of the surveyor before this Forum. Under these circumstances we have not considered the report submitted by the surveyor as proper one in order to consider about the loss of the vehicle. In this regard, we have referred the ruling submitted by the complainant, cited in 2002 CPJ II Page No. 420. wherein the Karnataka Honble State Commission has held in Aghana Aqua Farms V/s. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., case wherein it has held that the survey report should be supported by the affidavit of surveyor for its evidentiary value. In the absence of the affidavit it holds no evidentiary value. Under these circumstances we hold that ruling submitted by the complainant is of our Honble State Commission as it is applicable to the instant case of the complainant. So we have considered and accepted the bills submitted by the complainant. Hence we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to claim to the tune of Rs. 1,29,368/- towards the damage of the vehicle. But the Respondent in order to settle the claim he has paid only Rs. 30,000/- instead of Rs. 1,29,368/- this is nothing but an deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the Respondent. 10. The Respondent in his written version as contended that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has not lodged any complaint before the concerned police station. The Respondent has sent Rs. 30,000/- cheque i.e, Ex. P-7 towards the claim of the complainant regarding vehicle damage is concerned, in respect of the same accident. The Respondent has also not raised any objection in this regard earlier for settling the claim of the complainant and before sending Rs. 30,000/- amount to the complainant. Under these circumstances the above contentions of Respondent hold no good. Hence in the above circumstances, we hold that the complainant has proved his case against the Respondent. So point No.-1 is answered in affirmative. Further he estimated to receive interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. POINT NO.2:- 11. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 1,29,418/- along with interest and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture financial burden etc., but as per the Ex.P-7 it is very clear that the complainant has received Rs. 30,000/- from the Respondent. Hence after deducting the said amount now he is entitled to receive only to the tune of Rs. 99,368/- only. As regards to the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture, financial burden is concerned, the claim of the complaint in this regard is excessive and exorbitant one. Hence we have feel it is just and proper to award Rs. 2,500/- in this regard. POINT NO.3:- 12. In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 1,01,868/-which is rounded to Rs. 1,01,800/- from the Respondent. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 1,01,800/- from the date of the judgement till realization of the full amount. The Respondent has to comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-08-09.) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.