Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/20/2015

Yalappa M.T. S/o. Thippaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.D.H.Shanmukhappa

17 Nov 2015

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 19/01/2015

     DISPOSED ON: 17/11/2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 20/2015 DATED:  17th November 2015

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY,               MEMBER

                                         B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

                        SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI,       

                                         B.A., LL.B.,               MEMBER

COMPLAINANT	Yallappa. M.T, S/o Thippaiah, R/o Chikkagondanahalli Village, Chitradurga Taluk & Dist-577501.   (Rep by Sri. H.D. Shanmukhappa,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1.  The Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sudheva Plaza, III Floor, Opp: Laxmi Temple, Dajiban Peth, Hubli-580 029.   2.  The Branch Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., PSA and RD Complex, I Floor, Opp: Anwar Book Stall, Chitradurga-577 501.   (Rep by Sri. K. Mohan Butt,  Advocate)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a direction to the OPs to pay Rs.3,75,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income with interest at 12% p.a and etc.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, he is the owner of Mahindra Maximo Goods Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-16-B-5902 and the same was insured with the OPs under Cover Note No.73837086 which was valid from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014.  It is stated that, on 10.04.2014 at about 6-30 PM while moving near Madanayakanahalli village on NH-13, when the said vehicle completely damaged on account of bursting of left side tyre and the same was informed to the Turuvanur Police.  On 11.04.2014 the said Police registered a petty case No.132/2014 u/Sec.184 of IMV Act and surveyor of the Bellary Motors conducted spot mahazar and assessed the loss of damage and submitted a report to the tune of Rs.3,75,022-12/-.  Thereafter, complainant submitted a claim along with survey report and relevant documents but, the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant even though the policy was in force.  It is further stated that, the complainant got issued legal notice on 03.09.2014 through his Advocate but the OPs neither replied to the said notice nor settled the claim.  The act of the OPs in not settling the claim of the complainant caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  Therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs so, he sustained financial loss and mental agony and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

3. On service of notice OPs   appeared through Sri. K. Mohan Butt, Advocate and filed their version admitting about the issuance of Policy to the vehicle of the complainant Mahindra Maximo for an IDV of Rs. 2,85,000/- which was valid for the period from 19.06.32013 to 18.06.2014.  It is further stated that the said vehicle met with accident on 11.04.2014 and it was reported on 12.04.2014.  It is stated that, as per the accident claim intimation letter given by the complainant to the OPs, they have disputed Sri. M.C. Himat Kedar, Surveyor to assess the damage caused to the vehicle.  Subsequently, insured left the vehicle with M/s Bellary Motors and obtained an estimate on 22.04.2014 for repairs.  Thereafter, they arranged survey for an exact assessment of the loss through Sri. Jayaprakash but, the insured/complainant did not show any interest in spite of several visits to the work shop to assess the loss caused to the vehicle.  It is further stated that, the Surveyor has sent the reminder letters to the complainant on 20.05.2014, 05.06.2014 and finally on 02.07.2014 under RPAD but, till today the complainant has not repaired the said vehicle and they have not repudiated the claim of the complainant and ready to settle the claim as per the policy conditions, provided complainant co-operated with them for dismantling the vehicle.  It is denied that, they have not paid any amount to the complainant but, they are ready to pay cost of damages after the repair as per the policy conditions and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

        4.     It is not in dispute that, complainant is the owner of Mahindra Maximo Goods Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-16-B-5902 and the same was insured with the OPs which was valid from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014.  It is stated that, on 10.04.2014 at about 6-30 PM the said vehicle completely damaged on account of bursting of left side tyre and the same was informed to the Turuvanur Police and registered a petty case No.132/2014 u/Sec.184 of IMV Act and surveyor of the Bellary Motors conducted spot mahazar and assessed the loss of damage.  Thereafter, complainant submitted a claim but, the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant even though the policy was in force.

5.     It is admitted by the OPs about the issuance of Policy to the vehicle of the complainant Mahindra Maximo for an IDV of Rs. 2,85,000/- which was valid for the period from 19.06.32013 to 18.06.2014.  It is further stated that the said vehicle met with accident on 11.04.2014 and subsequently, insured left the vehicle with M/s Bellary Motors and obtained an estimate on 22.04.2014 for repairs.  OPs have made an arrangement to survey for an exact assessment of the loss through Sri. Jayaprakash but, the insured/complainant did not show any interest in spite of several visits to assess the loss caused to the vehicle and they are ready to pay cost of damages after the repair as per the policy conditions and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

6.     We have carefully gone through the entire order sheet of the case on hand.  It is seen that, after filing the complaint, OPs have filed their version denying the case of the complainant.  In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the complainant, he did not come forward to prove his case by filing an affidavit evidence and also by marking the documents.  Without filing the affidavit by the complainant to prove his case, we cannot accept his claim.  Under the circumstances, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant has no interest in prosecuting this case.  Accordingly, we pass the following.

ORDER

        It is ordered that the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No orders as to cost.

 

        (This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 17/11/2015 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Rhr.,