Karnataka

Bijapur

CC/60/2013

Devajappagouda S/o Somangouda Biradar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M.S Ghalipuji

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VIJAYAPUR

DATE OF FILING 6^th  DAY OF MAY 2013

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 60/2013

 

DATED THIS THE 28^th  DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016

 

01) Sri S.H. Hosalli                            -          President.     

                  B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

02) Smt.G.S. Kalyani                         -        Lady Member.

                 B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

COMPLAINANT   -

1

Shri. Devajappagouda S/o Somanagouda Biradar, Age:40 Yrs, Occ:Business, R/o Mukartihal Tq. B.Bagewadi Dist:Vijayapur.   (By Sri. M.S.Ghalipuji,, Adv)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -

1

The Manager, Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd., Land Mark, Kalkurgi Land Mark, Deshpade Nagar, HUBLI-580 029.    (By Sri. S.B.Kamtagi, Adv)

 

 

O R D E R

 

Speaking through Smt. G.S. Kalyani, Lady Member.

 

 

 

This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “Op”) directing the Op to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs,20,000/- for pecuniary damages for delay in settlement 18% interest for  above said amount, cost of  complaint of Rs.5,000/- and other such reliefs as  denied fit and proper.

 

 

 

 

2)       The brief facts of the case are that:-

         

          Complainant is the owner of the vehicle No:KA-28 B-3378 and insured his vehicle with Op under the cover note No:F0499603 covering the vehicle for the period from 11/06/2012 to 10/06/2013.  The said Policy is comprehensive Policy.

 

3)       The complainant contended that on 06/12/2012 at 23:30 hours the vehicle No:KA-28 B-3378 was proceeding on NH-13 Road, Near Morab Cross, at that time one vehicle No:GJ-12-X-3261 came from Opposite direction and hit to the vehicle of the complainant.  Due to this accident, the vehicle of  the complainant was completely damaged.  After the accident case has been registered at Kudalgi against the driver of the Truck No:GJ-12-X-3261.

 

4)       It is contended that complainant intimated the damages caused to the vehicle to the Op through telephone and submitted the claim from on 17/12/2012 to the Op with all necessary documents.  The Op conducted the survey.  Complainant received the estimation from Narayan Motor Repairing works, Belgaum estimation of Rs.1,30,533/- towards repair expenses of the vehicle.

 

5)       The complainant get the vehicle repaired from Narayan Motor repairing works, Belgaum.  The complainant has incurred expenditure of Rs.1,24,371.45 Ps including the spare parts labour charges etc.,

 

6)       The Op finalized the claim for Rs.24,631.65 Ps without any basis and without any ground for the said calculation. The Op has settled the matter at lower price.  So it is apparent on the face of the facts stated above that there is a deficiency of service to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint is filed for necessary reliefs as prayed in prayer coloumn.

 

7)       After receipt of notice Op appeared through counsel and filed objections in the objection Op contended that complaint is false frivolous and vexatious and it totally misconceived and is based on erroneous assumption.  Hence, liable to be dismissed with cost.

 

8)       Op admits that Op has issued commercial Motor insurance comprehensive policy in favour of complainant to his vehicle bearing its Reg. No:KA-28 B-3378 covering for a period from 11/06/2012 to 10/06/2013. The Policy is issued subject to various terms and conditions exceptions and limitations thereof.

 

 

9)       It is submitted by the Op that complaint is not maintainable before this forum since this Hon’be forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter as the complainant had taken a motor Policy from the Hubli Office of the Op and vehicle met with accident at Bellary District. Therefore this complaint is not maintainable as per the dictum held by the Hon’ble S.C.(2009) CPJ 40 (SC).  Hence this forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

 

10)     It is further stated that complainant lodged a claim under policy No:2012-V1850615-FCV for stating that his vehicle met with accident on 06/12/2012 after receipt of claim application Op appointed approved licensed surveyor for assessing loss.  The Op further submitted that there is no deficiency of service rendered by the Opponent in view of the proper and necessary service rendered by the Op.  Hence, this count also this Hon’ble forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this case.  The Op further submit that in this case complainant is not maintainable against this Op in all cases of quantum disputes and in this instant matter complainant has raised quantum dispute in respect to the insurance claim duly settled for Rs.24,631.65 Ps.  It is submitted that the any quantum diputes as per the clause 13 of policy terms has to be resolved through Arbitrar as per arbitration and conciliation Act 1996, This count also complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

11)     It is further submitted by Op that immediately after receiving intimation this Op appointed surveyor who gave detailed report net liability of this Op would be Rs.24,631.65 Ps  this case was settled the claim for Rs.24,631.65 Ps by means of cheque, complainant return the cheque surveyor assured is valid and   tunable for additional sum claimed untenable.  It is further submitted by Op that already claim settled and complainant never produced any evidence contrary to said report, already claim is settled as per surveyor report to the surveyor is an important document. Hence, complaint of the complainant is dismissed in the interest of justice.

 

12)     Both parties filed the affidavits in lieu of evidence.  Complainant produced 10 documents they are marked as Ex. C-1 to 10 and Op Advocate filed documents.  They are marked as Ex.Op-1 to 9 respectively.

 

13)     Both advocates filed their written arguments. Heard the arguments on both side.  Now the following points that arise for our consideration in deciding the case are:-

           

1. Whether the Op has rendered deficiency in service to the   

complainant?

            2) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as is   

                sought for?

            3) What order?

14)     Answer to the above points.

 

             1) In Affirmative.

    2) Partly Affirmative

              3) As per Final order.

 

REASONS.

 

15)    Point No.1:-  There is no dispute on the point that the policy was issued by the Op Company for a period of insurance from 11/06/2012 to 10/06/2013 and the said policy is comprehensive under cover note No:F0499603 vehicle No:KA-28
B-3378 produced by Op marked as Ex.Op-1.

 

16)     There is no dispute in respect of surveyor report and as per surveyor report claim was settled for Rs.24,631.65 Ps.  as per Op and the Op produced cheque to the said amount along with cash management services payments same is marked as Op-2.  On the contrary complainant after obtaining order from this Hon’ble forum Op produced claim from note Ex. Op-1 surveyor report i.e. Ex.
Op-3 and estimation report cash bill produced i.e. Ex. Op-7.

 

 

17)     As per the conditions of policy produced by Op Ex. Op-1 it disclose that the new vehicle which was insured under the policy and same has been damaged within 6 months from the date of its registration or policy there is Nil DEPRECIATION.  On the damages caused to the vehicle has to be ascertained while settling the claim of the claimant.  Hence, in this case also policy commences on 11/06/2012 to 10/06/2013 on 06/12/2012 at 23:30 hours vehicle met with an accident i.e. within 6 months from the date of commencement of policy and also despite of order from this Hon’ble forum the Op has not produced spot inspection report as well as bills submitted by the complainant worth of Rs.1,24,371.45 Ps. The Op has ready to settle the claim to the amount of Rs.24,631.65 Ps.

 

18)     The complainant had submitted claim form along with total cash bills as pr Ex.C-7 & 8 which comes to Rs.1,24,371.45 Ps and claim was not settled

19)     The counsel for the Op submits that the surveyor report is an important piece of evidence and have to given weight but the Op not dispute the bills produced by the complainant.  The Op has not placed any material on record to challenge the authenticity and veracity of the bills produced by the complainant, we relied upon the citation reported in 2015 (2) CPR 172 (NC) that documentary evidence will always get preponderance over oral submissions.  Hence, in this case complainant produced documents to evidence that he spend Rs.1,24,371.45 Ps for vehicle repair in this case Op not produced spot survey report and Op not produced bill check report.  Looking to the facts on circumstances of the case, Op committed deficiency of service to the complainant.  Hence, we answer to the point No:1 in affirmative.

 

20)    Point No:2:- There is no doubt that, once the deficiency is proved the next point is how much compensation complainant is entitled for? Op is order to pay Rs.1,24,371/- towards vehicle damages with 8% interest from the date of accident i.e. on 06/02/2012, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency in settling the claim and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.  Hence, we answer to the point No:2 in partly affirmative. 

 

21)    Point No.3:-   In the result the complaint of the complainant is fit to be allowed in part.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

O R D E R

1. The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.
2. The Op is directed to pay sum of Rs.1,24,371/-
   (Rs.One lakh Twenty Four Thousand Three Thousand Seventy One Only) with 8% interest from the date of accident i.e. 06/12/2012 to  till realization.
3. The Op is directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand Only) towards litigation cost and Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand Only) towards delay for settling the claim.
4. The Opposite party shall comply with this order within two months from the date of this order, failure of which the above said amount i.e. Rs.1,24,371/- shall  carry an interest at the rate of Rs.12% p.a. from the date of accident 06/12/2012 to till complete realization.

 

   (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited,

corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 28^th day of November 2016).

 

 

 

Sri. S. H. Hosalli  President.

Smt. G. S. Kalyani     Lady Member.