Date of Filing: 30/06/2011
Date of Order: 04/08/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1201 OF 2011
Sri. Thammanna,
S/o. Late Sitharama Naidu,
Aged About 65 years,
R/at: No.207, 25th Cross,
6th Block, Jayanagar,
BANGALORE-82.
(Rep. by Advocate M.Ramamurthy) Complainant.
-V/s-
The Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company,
No.44/45, Leo Shopping Complex,
Residency Road Cross,
4th Floor, Bangalore-25.
(Absent though served) Opposite party.
BY SMT.NIVEDITHA. J, LADY MEMBER
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,36,910/-, are necessary:-
The complainant has insured his vehicle bearing registration No. KA-05-B-2728 ‘Tempo-407” with the opposite party and the insurance was valid between 11.06.2009 to 10.06.2010. On 24.07.2009 near Shanthinagar, Kunigal Road, Nelamangala, the said vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages. It was informed to the opposite party by telephone and was requested to give the claim form. A case was registered before the jurisdictional police. The opposite party issued the claim form and deputed a surveyor. The surveyor made a mahazar and asked the complainant to take the vehicle for repair to their garage. The complainant submitted the claim form on 30.07.2009. The opposite party directed the complainant to pay his own money and seek reimbursement later. Hence the complainant paid Rs.86,910/- to the garage owner and got the vehicle released and bills were submitted to the opposite party. On 17.08.2010 the opposite party repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds. Hence the complaint.
2. In this case the opposite party though served for the hearing date 30.07.2011 as per the postal acknowledgement, remained absent throughout the proceedings. Hence the complainant filed a Memo stating that the complaint and documents may be read as his evidence. Heard the arguments of the complainant.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice?
- What order?
4. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A):In the Positive
Point (B) : As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
5. Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents on record, it is established that the complainant has insured his vehicle bearing No. KA-05-B-2728 with the opposite party which has issued policy bearing No. 423001/2010/2696 and the insurance was valid between 11.06.2009 to 10.06.2010. It is also established that the said vehicle met with an accident on 24.07.2009 near Shanthinagar, Kunigal Road, Nelamangala. Regarding that a case was registered in Crime No.637/2009, dated: 24.07.2009 before the jurisdictional police station. The complainant made a claim with the opposite party regarding the damages sustained to the vehicle. As per the advice of the surveyor of the opposite party the complainant left the vehicle with Royal Tempo Garage for repairs. The Royal Tempo Garage has given bill for Rs.86,910/-. The opposite party did not pay the amount to the Garage. The complainant had paid the same and got the vehicle released. After the repair, the complainant submitted the bills to the opposite party, though he has already made a claim with the opposite party. The opposite party has not submitted the surveyor’s report it but rejected the claim on 17.08.2010 stating that in the cabin of the vehicle in question there were three passengers excluding the driver, but the permit was for only two passengers. This is an untenable contention taken by the opposite party. The complainant has not laid claim regarding any injuries or death of any of the passengers of the vehicle. The complainant has made the claim only regarding the damages to the vehicle. The opposite party has taken a wrong stand in rejecting/repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence the action of the opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.
6. In this case it is seen from the bill there are many consumables that has also been added in the bill. Hence looking to the circumstances of this case if we deduct 20% of the amount claimed on non-standard basis and order rest of the amount to be paid to the complainant we think that will meet the ends of justice. This will solve a problem of excess passenger and consumables also. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.69,528/- within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which it shall pay the said amount with interest @ 12% per annum from 24.07.2009 until payment within 60 days.
3. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.
4. The opposite party is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above through DD by registered post acknowledgment due to the complainant and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 4th Day of August 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
