COMPLAINT FILED: 27.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 18th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 225/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Dr. Suresh Joshi,<br /> S/o. Late Rama Rao Joshi,<br /> Aged 65 years,<br /> No. 70/2, A-block,<br /> Raheja Residence,<br /> BDA Complex Road,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (C.S. Patil)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,<br /> Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.,<br /> Mysore Trade Centre,<br /> Opp-KSRTC Bus Stand,<br /> Mysore – 570 001.<br /> Also at No. 56,<br /> Mission Road,<br /> Bangalore – 27.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Ravi. S. Samprathi)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim for Rs.7,55,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-12-N-3268. OP insured the said vehicle for the period from 04.12.2007 to 03.12.2008, IDV is Rs.7,55,000/-. On 03.02.2008 the said vehicle met with an accident in Belgaum Gao road due to dash of a lorry bearing No. KA-22-A-3499, extensive damages were caused to the said vehicle that too beyond repairable. Complainant intimated the said accident to the OP, lodged complaint to the concerned police, thereafter made a claim to the OP by producing all the necessary documents. With all that OP failed to settle the claim inspite of the repeated requests and demands made. Complainant issued the legal notice on 28.07.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it has not repudiated the claim of the complainant, it kept pending the claim for want of necessary documents which complainant failed to produce inspite of repeated demands. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy including the exclusion clauses. On the receipt of the information about the accident OP took steps for survey and appointed one Ravi Udakeri and CSV Acharaya to assess the damages caused to the vehicle. The claim of the complainant is highly exorbitant and arbitrary. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-12-N-3268 and OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle for the period 04.12.2007 to 03.12.2008 the declared value of the vehicle is Rs.7,55,000/-. The fact that the said vehicle met with an accident on 03.02.2008 is also not at dispute. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though he brought the said fact of accident to the notice of the OP immediately and made claim by producing all the necessary documents, there was no response from the OP. Complainant lodged a complaint immediately to the concerned police. He also sent the consent letter. Again there was no response. According to the complainant there was a total damage caused to the said vehicle which is not in a repairable condition, there is a total loss. <br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. When OP failed to settle the claim within a reasonable time, complainant got issued the legal notice on 28.07.2008. The copy of the legal notice and postal acknowledgement are produced. Again there was no response. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. OP has not disputed the fact of accident or it having taken place during the insurance coverage period. <br /> <br /> 8. OP says that it has appointed one Mr. Ravi Udakeri and CSV Acharaya to inspect the damaged vehicle and survey. Unfortunately the survey report is not filed nor affidavit of the persons appointed by the OP for the needful are filed. OP to the reasons best know to it wants to suppress certain material facts and the documents which are well within its knowledge. It would have been more fair on the part of the OP to produce the survey report and act in accordance with the said report. But no such steps are taken. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 9. OP has further contended that complainant failed to produce the necessary documents with regard to the said vehicle damaged in the accident. As already observed by us, complainant has produced the R.C., insurance policy, consent letter, FIR copy, IMV report. When the surveyor and the loss assessor of the OP visited the spot, examined the damaged vehicle naturally they must have taken the photographs, even those photographs are not produced. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant that the vehicle is extensively damaged and it is beyond the repairs. <br /> <br /> 10. When that is so, the complainant is entitled for the IDV of the said vehicle. OP can take back all the parts of the wrecked vehicle including salvages. The non-settlement of the said claim well within the reasonable time must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence he is entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the claim for Rs.7,55,000/- and take back the wrecked vehicle and the salvages. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />