The Managing Director, Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:15.12.2008 Date of Order:30.09.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2698 OF 2008 Suresh, S/o Anjanappa, No.9, 2nd Cross, Susheela Road, Doddamavalli, Bangalore 560 004. Complainant V/S The Managing Director, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., No. 28/5, Scntnary Building, East Wing, M.G. Road, Bangalore. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that, the complainant is the owner of lorry bearing No. GJ-1UU-7051. On 23/1/2007 the said was proceeding from Lalbag road to Ashok Pillar side. At that time one motorbike came from left side suddenly. The driver of the said lorry shocked and applied the breaks, but he couldnt control the lorry and hit to the road side tree. As a result of which the cabin of the lorry was fully damaged. The complainant has given complaint to Wilson Garden Traffic Police Station. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party under policy No.2007015073104 and on the date of accident, the policy was in force. The complainant has claimed compensation along with repair bills for an amount of Rs. 1,55,800/. Out of that the opposite party has given cheque for Rs.22,000/- only. Hence, the complainant prayed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,33,800/- with interest. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party appeared through counsel and submitted defence version stating that, the opposite party has issued a motor policy for insurance in favour of the complainant in respect of lorry bearing No. GA-01 UU 7051. The liability of the opposite party if any under the above policy is subject to the terms and conditions. Having regard to the damages and assessment made by the qualified and licensed surveyor and allowing policy deductions and allowing policy deductions and depreciation, has paid the amount in full and final settlement of the claim. The opposite party is not aware and therefore denies that the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.1,55,800/- for repairs of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and by applying its mind and going by the assessment of the surveyor, has settled the claim. The opposite party is not liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,800/-. The amount under the policy was already paid there is no balance to be paid and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us following points arise for consideration: Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? REASONS 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant has insured his vehicle with the opposite party. The complainant in his complaint left blank the validity period of the policy that means he has not mentioned the validity period of the policy in his complaint. The vehicle met with an accident on 23/11/2007. The complainant admittedly has not produced copy of the policy before this Fora for perusal. The complainant has not produced documents of vehicle. The complainant has not produced FIR or any other police papers. The complainant has not produced the vehicle documents that is R.C book and other documents. It is very difficult to find out what was the IDV of the vehicle. Since the policy has not been produced by the complainant. The complainant having not produced the vehicle documents i.e., that is R.C. Book extract. Therefore, it is very difficult to find out the year of manufacture of the vehicle for the purpose of depreciation and salvage. The complainant admittedly had put up the claim with the opposite party and the opposite party had accepted the claim for Rs.22,000/- and accordingly had given a cheque for that amount. The complainant accepted the cheque from the opposite party for Rs. 22,000/-. It is the case of the opposite party that as per the assessment made by the surveyor the amount has been paid to the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim and which had been accepted by the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party submitted that complaint deserves to be dismissed. The complainant in his complaint never made any allegation against the opposite party. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party had taken discharge voucher from the complainant by coercion or by force. The complainant has not challenged the payment made by the opposite party as full and final settlement. The complainant has not stated in his complaint or in his affidavit that he had accepted a discharge voucher and received cheque for Rs. 22,000/- from the opposite party under durance or under any hardship beyond his control. So under these circumstances, when the complainant had accepted the payment made by the opposite party without any protest, how can he file the complaint before this Fora for deficiency of service. The complainant never made any allegation in his complaint as to how and in what manner the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Cheque has been received by the complainant in the month of September-2008 and after receiving the cheque even the complainant has not sent legal notice to the opposite party demanding the balance amount and the opposite party never protested the claim accepted and paid by the opposite party. So under the circumstances, when the amount had been accepted by the complainant without any protest and the complainant has not made any allegation of deficiency of service. It is very difficult to hold that the opposite party in this case has committed deficiency in service. The complainant has miserably failed to establish his case and there is no proper proof or any evidence so to hold that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER Rhr.,
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
