BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM, BAGALKOT.

Date of filing:02-11-2010

Date of Order: 28-01-2011

Consumer Complaint No.179/2010

PRESENT

01) Shri. A.M.Pattar, B.A.LL.B. (Spl)

                 District Judge(R)                                                    President…

02) Smt.Girija.R.Adakenavar, B.A.                                                  Lady Member…

COMPLAINANT

1. Sri.Tippanna S/o Nagappa Kilari,

Age:45 Yrs, Occ:Agril. R/o Lokapur,

Tq:Mudhol, Dist:Bagalkot.

                                    (By Sri. J.N. Kulkarni, Advocate)

                         V/s

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. The Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Katagi Building, 1^st Floor, Kacheri Road,

Jamakhandi, Tq:Jamakhandi,

Dist: Bagalkot.

                                                                      (By Sri.S.S. Palled, Advocate)

O R D E R

Sri.A.M.Pattar, Dist. Judge (Retd), President.

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the Opposite Party (in short the ‘Op’) for recovery of balance of insurance amount of Rs.58,061/- with 24% of interest in respect of insured damaged vehicle and award of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, harassment along with the costs of the proceedings etc.

           2. The facts of the case in brief are that; the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing No.KA-29/T-3309/3310 and insured the same with the Op which was valid from 24.12.2007 to 23.12.2008 and it was valued by the Op at the time of the insurance at Rs.1,17,061/-.  However the vehicle met with an accident on 24.11.2008 on which date the insurance was inforce and it was damaged and the complainant got it repaired by spending huge amount and after that he submitted claim application along with all the necessary documents.  But the Op instead of paying full value of the vehicle has paid only Rs.59,000/- but the remaining amount of Rs.58,061/- has not been paid by the Op inspite of repeated request and issuance of notice and non-payment of the balance amount amounts to deficiency in service which has caused mental agony and financial loss etc., and hence has prayed for allowing the complaint.

           3.  The Op has appeared through the counsel and opposed the claim of the complainant by filing detailed written version wherein it has admitted about the ownership of the vehicle of the complainant its insurance and occurrence of the accident and has also admitted the subsistence of the insurance policy on the date of the accident and further stated that after the accident the vehicle was subjected to survey, the Surveyor has submitted the Survey Report and as per the final Survey Report, the liability of the insurance company was fixed at Rs.59,000/- and same has been paid to the complainant which he has accepted without any objections and the vehicle in question was 10 years old and considering the age of the vehicle the depreciation has made, as per the law, the amount has been paid and there is no deficiency in service etc., and hence has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

           4.  Both the parties have filed affidavits in support of their respective cases.  Thirteen documents are marked for the complainant as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and three documents are marked for the Op as Ex.Op1 to Ex.Op3.

           5.  Heard arguments of both the sides.

           6.  Now the points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as is sought for?
2. What order?

Answers to the above Points:-

1)  Negative.

                             2)  As per final order

R E A S O N S

            7.  POINT NO.1:- The fact that the vehicle in question is of the ownership of the complainant is not in dispute and it is also an admitted fact that the same was duly insured with the Op and the insurance policy was in-subsistence on the date of the accident.  After the accident the complainant has made a claim with the Op and the Op has been pleased to pay the amount of Rs.59,000/- as per the Survey Report and this amount has been accepted by the complainant.  But the only contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that at the time of issuance of the insurance policy the Op was valued the vehicle at Rs.1,17,061/-, but it has paid only Rs.59,000/- instead of paying the entire value of the vehicle which is more-than Rs.1,00,000/-.  However the learned counsel for the Op submitted that the full value of the vehicle cannot at all be paid in such cases, the full value will be paid only, if there is a total loss or damage to the vehicle and in this case the vehicle was 10 years old and it was repaired by spending certain amount and it was also subjected to survey and the Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.59,000/- and that much amount has been paid to the complainant.  We find some force in this contention, because in such cases the insurance company is not liable to pay the entire value of the vehicle, the payment of entire value of the vehicle will be made, if there is a total damage or loss to the vehicle.  In this case, the vehicle has not been damaged totally.  On the other hand it has been repaired and brought on road.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the full value of the vehicle.  It is also worth to note that the vehicle in question was 10 years old and was subjected to survey by the Surveyor and the Surveyor has assessed the liability and insurance company Rs.59,000/-.  In settling such matters, the forum has to necessarily rely on survey report and there are no materials to show that this survey is not proper one.  When that is so the Op was justified in paying the amount as per the vehicle survey report which has been accepted without any objection by the complainant.  Therefore, absolutely there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op, therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief.  During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant has made reference of some two decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Gauhati.  But the facts and circumstances of those two cases are all together different from the facts and circumstances of this case.  Therefore, they are not helpful to the complainant.  In view of this we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and hence we answer point No.1 in the Negative.

            8.  Point No.2: In the result the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and hence we proceed pass the following…

O R D E R

Complaint of the complainant is dismissed with costs.

Send free copy of this order to the parties immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th  day of January 2011)