BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.50 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.1147 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between:
Mr.K.Parthasarathy S/o late Sri K.Srinivasachary
aged 40 years, Occ: Private Employee
R/o H.No.12-11-1441, Boudhanagar,
Warasiguda, Hyderabad
Appellant/ Complainant
The Oriental Insurance Company
(A Government of India Undertaking)
6-2-976, “Capitol”, Pavani Estates
Khairatabad, Hyderabad-044
rep. by its Manager.
Respondent/ opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents
QUORUM:
1.
2.
3. `7,58,715/-.
4. `1,00,000/- for dismantling of the engine and commencement of repairs. The respondent insurance company issued letters dated 11.11.2009 and 30.11.2009 asking the appellant to request M/s Sundaram Motors Pvt Ltd to dismantle the vehicle for which the appellant had replied that it is not his responsibility to dismantle the vehicle while the vehicle was repaired.
5. `1,39,537/- and refused to pay the IDV towards repair charges. The Insurance Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on 9.08.2010. Hence, the complaint.
6.
7. 8. `2,58,029/- towards the loss and`30,000/- which was the provision made for internal damages by the Insurance Ombudsman.
9.
10.
i) Whether the appellant is entitled to the amount sought for from the respondent?
ii) To what relief?
11. : The appellant lodged claim with the respondent and they had closed the claim on the premise that the appellant failed to get the vehicle dismantled. The surveyor appointed to conduct final survey requested the appellant to issue instructions to the repairer to dismantle the vehicle and the letter dated 6.10.2009 addressed to the appellant reads as follows:
“With reference to the above claim, we have inspected the above vehicle at M/s Sundaram Honda on 5.10.2009.
As it was very much delayed, please look into the matter of dismantling and submission of all vehicle documents and explanation letter about delay in submission of papers”.
12. `1,00,0000/- to dismantle the vehicle. The appellant approached the Insurance Ombudsman who passed the Award holding that the repairer stated that surveyor when asked for the difference between the estimate and the assessment of loss as
“In the course of the hearing, the surveyor was asked to clarify the reasons for the vast difference in loss assessment on repair mode as against the estimate exceeding Rs.10.75 lakhs. ”.
13.
“The surveyor was asked to state the gross assessed loss and the amount deducted for depreciation.
14.
15.
“Condition No.3 of the Insurance policy gives discretion to the respondent insurance company to settle the claim in one of the modes of the settlement and it reads as under:
“The company may at its own option repair, reinstate or replace the Motor Car or part thereof and/or its accessories or may pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage and the liability of the Company shall not exceed the value of the part damaged or lost less depreciation plus the reasonable cosdt of the fitting and shall in no case exceed the insured’s estimate of the value of the motor car (including accessories thereon) as specified in the schedule or the value of the motor car (including accessories thereon) at the time of the loss or damage whichever is the less”
In exercise of its power conferred on it by Condition No.3 of the Insurance Policy, the Respondent Insurance company requested the appellant company to get the vehicle repaired and submit the bills for the expenditure incurred therefor.
16. `1,80,000/- after disallowing taxes and on further reduction of 25% of the amount.
“The insurer’s representative was asked to state if there was any other mode of settlement for which the complainant might accept and the reply was in the negative.
17. `1,80,000 towards cost of the repairs of the vehicle and`20,000/- towards compensation to the appellant. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total amount of`2,00,000/-.
18. `2,00,000/- to the appellant together with costs of`3,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
కె.ఎం.కె*
