Date of filing : 14.10.2009<br /> Date of Order: 01.10.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> <br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2398 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Sri Jamshed Ali Khan<br /> S/o late Munir Khan,<br /> R/at No.379, N.R. Colony,<br /> Murugesh Palya, <br /> Jeeven Bheemanagar,<br /> Bangalore-17. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The Managing Director,<br /> M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,<br /> No.28, 5th Floor, Centenary Building,<br /> Mahatama Gandhi Road,<br /> Bangalore-1. Opposite party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant had insured his vehicle registration No.KA-25-N-423 with the opposite party. The insurance will commence from 2-5-2009 to 1-5-2010. The complainant has paid total premium Rs.6,200/-, sum insured is Rs.2,00,000/-. The car met with an accident on 4-5-2009. The complainant got repaired the car and spent Rs.55,600/-. The complainant made several request to the opposite party to settle the claim. Legal notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party never replies the notice nor paid the money. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. The opposite party had filed defense version, admitting that the Hyundai Santro car vehicle No.KA-25-N-423 was insured with them. The complainant informed the opposite party of the accident on 15-5-2009 after lapse of 11 days. The Surveyor after detailed examination of the vehicle had prepared a report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,050/- only. The opposite party has not repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is still under process. Meanwhile the complainant had approached the Hon’ble Forum. Hon’ble Forum deems to fix necessary liability same may be limited to Rs.14,050/-as assessed by the surveyor. <br /> 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents. <br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> <br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. It is an admitted case of the parties. The complainant had insured the vehicle with the opposite party. The effective date of policy is 2-5-2009 to 1-5-2010. The sum insured is Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant has paid Rs.6,200/- as premium amount. The complainant has produced cover note. The vehicle met with an accident on 4-5-2009, FIR is produced. The only defense taken by the opposite party is the complaint has made 11 days delay in informed the accident. But, there is no any condition in the policy that the fact of the accident should be mentioned immediately. Therefore, the delay of 11 days is not important point to be taken note of. The opposite party admitted in the version that the surveyor had examined the vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,050/- and the opposite party is ready to pay the amount as per the assessment of loss made by the surveyor. The complainant is claiming Rs.55,600/- on the ground that he had spent that amount to carryout the repairs of the vehicle. But, unfortunately the complainant had not produced bills or vouchers of authorized garage or service center to establish the fact that he has paid rs.55,600/-. The complainant has produced quotation of Annu Garage dated 20-5-2009. This document is not a authenticated and valid document to prove the amount spent towards repair. Nothing prevented the complainant to produce bills and vouchers and receipts of the authorized garage. Secondly Annus Garage is not an authorized service center of Santro vehicle. The quotation submitted by the complainant can not be accepted for the purpose of fixing the liability on the opposite party. The contention of the opposite party that official surveyor had examined the vehicle and assessed the damage to the tune of Rs.14,050/- shall have to be accepted as valid and reliable document. So under this circumstances the opposite party shall have to be directed to pay Rs.14,050/- as per the assessment of damages carried on by the surveyor. The opposite party should have immediately paid the amount as per the survey report. But, the opposite party has failed in its duty in not paying the amount to the complainant. Therefore, this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is definitely entitled to the sum of Rs.14,050/- from the opposite party with interest from the date of filing complaint till the date of receipt of the amount. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.14,050/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this order along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till payment / realization. <br /> 8. The complainant is also entitled Rs.3,000/- as cost of the present proceedings from the opposite party. <br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />