CC Filed on 17.04.2007<br /> Disposed on 27.05.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 27th Day of May 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.90/2007<br /> <br /> Venkataram,<br /> S/o Muniyappa,<br /> Aged about 40 years,<br /> R/o No.1213/2,<br /> 1st Cross, 4th Main Road,<br /> Kolaramma Extension,<br /> Kolar. Complainant <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. K.Narasimhagowda & Others)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> Regional Office,<br /> No.2B, Utility Building Annexe,<br /> Mission Road,<br /> Bangalore - 27.<br /> Rep: by its Manager.<br /> <br /> 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> Bagalur Mansion,<br /> 2nd Floor, Big Bazaar,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> Rep: by its Manager. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.C.Subbaraja Setty) <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay a <br /> <br /> CC No.90/2007<br /> compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant towards repair charges of vehicle and damage caused to it with interest and costs etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of the complainant’s case may be stated as fallows: That the complainant was the owner of TATA Sumo bearing registration No.KA-07 / 4060 and this vehicle was comprehensively insured with OP-2 under policy No.672101/31/06/01/00001706 for the period from 15.11.2006 to 14.11.2007. This vehicle met with an accident on 25.01.2007 at about 1-00 a.m. an NH-4 near Bethani village, as a car bearing registration No.TN-09 / S-2812 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against this vehicle and it was extensively damaged. <br /> <br /> This vehicle was left at Madeena Auto Works, Kolar and intimation was given to Insurance Company. The concerned field officer visited the work shop as well the spot and noticed the damage caused to this vehicle and prepared his spot report.<br /> <br /> It is alleged that after submission of the claim form before OP-2 it had not taken any further action to pay the amount for effecting repairs as stated in the quotation of Madeena Auto Works for Rs.76,668/-. Therefore it is alleged that there is deficiency in service and the complaint is filed on 17.04.2007. <br /> <br /> 3. The OPs appeared and contested the complaint. They contended that soon after receipt of claim papers one Venugopal .S.N an authorized surveyor and loss assessor was appointed and he visited Madeena Auto Works on 02.02.2007 and prepared preliminary report dated 07.02.2007 and told the repairer as well as the complainant to effect repair of the <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.90/2007<br /> vehicle at an early date and to submit the final bills etc., for preparing final survey report. Further they contended that the complainant did not get the vehicle repaired and expressed that he would proceed against the owner of other vehicle before MACT for claiming compensation etc. They stated that they are ready to process the claim of complainant if he gets the repair work speedily done and submits the final bills. Therefore they contended that there is no deficiency on their part. The version was filed on 06.08.2007. <br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits and relevant documents. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> In view of the controversy, we suggested the complainant to effect repairs and to submit the bills to OP-2. In March-2008 the complainant reported that he furnished the bills to OP-2 after effecting repairs to the vehicle. Thereafter surveyor M.G.Vijay prepared his report dated 30.03.2008 and sent it to OP-2. OP-2 filed memo on 29.04.2008 stating that the net amount payable comes to Rs.34,842/- and produced the final survey report of M.G.Vijay. <br /> <br /> The learned counsel for complainant submitted that the depreciation deducted is on higher side. It is found that the vehicle was of 2002 make and the depreciation calculated is as per prescribed percentage. Therefore we accept that the net amount payable comes to Rs.34,842/- as stated by OP-2 which is based on survey report. <br /> <br /> 5. The learned counsel for complainant submitted that there is long delay in settling the claim, therefore complainant should be awarded compensation. On the other hand the learned counsel for OP-2 submitted <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.90/2007<br /> that the delay was due to the latches on the part of complainant and he did not get the vehicle repaired at an early date and went on insisting for payment before effecting the repairs. The facts of the case make it probable that the defense of OP-2 in this regard is acceptable. <br /> <br /> 6. For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> The complaint is partly allowed with costs of Rs.1000/-. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.34,850/- (Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty only) to complainant with interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from 01.05.2008 till the date of payment, within 30 days from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 27th day of May 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />