Date of Complaint : 04/06/2014

                                  Date of Disposal: 10/09/2015

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

JUDGEMENT BY SRI. V.A. PATIL, PRESIDENT

     The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the respondent directing, to pay the compensation of Rs.3,37,940/- (three lakh thirty seven thousand nine hundred and forty only) with interest and to pay the appropriate compensation as well as the cost of the proceedings and other reliefs deemed fit under the circumstances of the case alleging deficiency of service.

1. The brief facts leading to this complaint are that, the complainant is the registered owner of the Eicher Heavy Goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA 12 A 1746 and the said vehicle was insured with OP and the period covered was from 11/06/2011 to 10/06/2012.

2. On 17/04/2012 the said vehicle met with an accident and the said matter was reported to the opponent.  Accordingly the estimation and the survey reports have been submitted to the opposite party.  The complainant further submits that he has paid the repair charges of Rs.5,34,940/- (Five lakh thirty four thousand nine hundred and forty only) to the Rashica Motors and he further submits that he has paid Rs.5,000/- towards towing charges.

3.  It is submitted by the complainant that only Rs.2,02,000/- (Two lakh two thousand only) is credited to his account and the opponent has failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,37,940/- (Three lakh thirty seven thousand nine hundred and forty only) and the opposite party has not settled the matter.   Hence, the requisition letter dated 18/01/2014 is sent, and the opponent replied evasively on 30/01/2014.  Therefore, the act of the opponent amounts to deficiency of service.

4. The legal notice was issued to the opponent on 17/03/2014 calling upon to settle the matter, but the opponent neither replied for the same nor settled the matter.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum seeking the remedies, for his redressals. 
5. After registering the case as usual notice sent to OP which is served on OP and OP files the version, admitting the accident and further states that, immediately after receiving the claim form the OP deputed the Surveyor and he conducted the survey on 28/06/2012 and informed the complainant to get the vehicle dismantled.  On 03/07/2012 the final survey was conducted.  As per the survey report dated 21/04/2012 the estimation the surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.2,91,306/-.  After that the vehicle was not repaired for a long time.  The supplementary estimate was not furnished, after dismantling, and the same was submitted by the complainant nearly nine months after the accident and after six months from the date of dismantle.  Later the Surveyor received the letter dated 08/04/2013 from the complainant stating his in ability to get the vehicle repaired in time, and with the request to do the final inspection.

6. Thus on account of inordinate delay on the part of the complainant, the Surveyor submitted his final survey and scrutiny report on 11/09/2013 and he assessed the net loss of Rs.2,04,746/-.  As the complainant authorized the opponent on 20/12/2013 the opponent has credited a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- to the complainants account.  As the complainant has not produced the towing charges bill, the same was deducted from Rs.2,04,746/-.  Further the OP states that, the OP is not liable to pay the amount as claimed by the complainant and further states that the claim of the complainant is more than the declared value of the vehicle and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opponent.   The assessment was properly made and subject to the conditions of the policy and request to dismiss the complaint.

7. Both the parties submitted the affidavit and written arguments.  Heard both the parties.  Now the points that arise for our consideration are as under;

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought?

3. What order

         Findings on the above points are as follows;

            Point No.01:- Negative

            Point No.02:- Negative

            Point No.03:- As per final order

R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1 and 2 :- In this case it is admitted fact that complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg No.KA 12-A-1746 and same met with accident on 17/04/2012 and the said mater was reported to the opponent and as soon as the OP received the intimation  a surveyor was appointed and estimation and survey reports submitted to the OP.

     It is submitted by the complainant that the total cost of the repair is Rs.5,34,940/- and the opponent has paid only Rs.2,02,000/- and the OP has still to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,37,940/- by considering the supplementary bill, along with compensation and cost of this proceedings.  But it is the contention of the OP that as soon as the claim form is received a competent surveyor is deputed to assess the loss the said surveyor conducted the survey on 28/04/2012 and informed the complainant to get the vehicle dismantled.  As the vehicle was not dismantled inspite of several calls, the surveyor conducted the final survey on 03/07/2012, after the vehicle was dismantled and as per the estimation dated 21/04/2012, the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.2,91,306/-.

     As the vehicle was not repaired for a long time the supplementary estimation was not furnished.  Thus on account of inordinate delay on the part of the complainant.  The surveyor submits the final survey and scrutiny report on 11/09/2013 and assessed the net loss of Rs.2,04,746/-.  As per the settlement a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- is credited to the account of the complainant on 20/12/2013. 

     After receipt of the said amount the complainant approached this Forum on 04/06/2014 claiming compensation for the deficiency of the OP and the difference amount of total cost of repair i.e., Rs.5,34,940/- paid by the complainant, less the amount received from the OP i.e., Rs.2,02,000/-.

     It is admitted that the accident took place on 17/04/2012 and the complainant received the sum of Rs.2,02,000/-on 20/12/2013 and subsequently a supplementary estimate prepared in January 2013 is submitted by the complainant after the gap of nine months from the date of accident and six months from the date of dismantle of the vehicle.  Hence, the surveyor is also not convinced with for considering the same.

     As there is inordinate delay in getting the vehicle repaired by the complainant, the OP has considered the claim of the complainant favourably, as per the assessment and recommendations of the surveyor and accordingly the matter was settled, as full and final settlement.  Refer the order passed by the National Commission in CPJ 2015(I) page 151.

     Subsequently on 03/02/2015 an addendum report was submitted by the Surveyor to the OP after considering the age of the vehicle and by deducting 15% and 50% depreciation slab on ‘R’ parts and following the, terms and conditions of the policy and the I.V value the liability of the insurer is fixed for a sum of Rs.68,198-98 and the same is deposited by the OP and the complainant received the same also.

9. On perusal of the complaint, and the objections of the OP and the documents submitted by both the parties, and their respective affidavits and arguments, we are of the opinion that, there is no deficiency of service from the OP.

     As there is inordinate delay on the part of the complainant to submit the final survey report and also the complainant has accepted the claim as final settlement, the complainant is not entitle to receive the entire repair cost of the vehicle, as prayed for in the complainant.

     Even inspite of inordinate delay in submitting the final report and even after the settlement also the OP has paid a sum of Rs.68,199/- towards the addendum cost of repair, which itself be treated as compensation.

10. In view of the above following;

O R D E R

     The complaint is dismissed.  However both the sides shall bear their own cost.

     Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 10^th   day of SEPTEMBER 2015)

      (LATHA.M.S.)            (V.A. PATIL)        (K.D. PARVATHY)       

         MEMBER               PRESIDENT               MEMBER

 ANNEXURE