Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/113/2017

Sri Prahalad A N - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.KhalidAhamed

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :13/11/2017

               DISPOSED ON:11/10/2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 113/2017 DATED:11th OCTOBER 2018

 

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :      PRESIDENT                             B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

COMPLAINANT/S	Sri Prahalad A N S/o A.L. Narayanshetty, aged about 55 Years, Merchant, R/o: Renaukapura Village, Challkere Tq,Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.Khalid Ahammed, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd., Vishranthi Melaram Towers,No.2/319, Rajeev Gandhi Salai, Karapakka, Chennai, Tamilnadu.   2. The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd., Tumkuru, Karnataka.   3. The Manager, M.S.A Motors, spares & Services, Autonagar, NH 7,Hyderabad Road,     (Rep by Sri.B.S.S, Advocate)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The complainant has been filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite parties to direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,05,466/- along with cost and such other reliefs.

 

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the RC owner of Maruthi Swift LDI Car bearing Registration No.KA-04 ME-0315 and the same has been insured with OP No.1 and 2 under POS Package policy bearing No.MOP4190072 valid for the period from 28.02.2017 to 27.02.2018.  It is further submitted that, the above said vehicle met with an accident on Challakere-Bellary road about 3-4 KMs away from Challakere and the same has been repaired with the OP No.3 by spending an amount of Rs.1,36,722/-.  The said amount has to bear by the OP No.1 and 2. But, without any basis they contributed fancifully i.e., 50% for some parts and 17.5% for some parts according to their wish.  The OP No.1 and 2 have not considered the surveyor’s report, the same amounts to unfair trade practice.  The complainant has incurred a sum of Rs.2,500/- to bring the car to the garage from the accident spot.  The complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.38,106/- in cash for repairs.  The bill amount is of Rs.1,05,466/- and the net estimate amounting to Rs.1,36,722-80.  The OP No.3 took long time to repair the same and complainant visited the Karnool on many occasions in order to secure the vehicle at the earliest.  The job card date is 20.06.2017 and the vehicle ready on 13.09.2017 but it was delivered on 04.10.2017, for that, the OP No.3 is also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- for causing delay, therefore the OPs have to pay the entire repair charges of the vehicle.  But, the OPs have deducted some amounts according to their fancy and collected amount from the complainant, which is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, for which the complainant has suffered huge loss.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 26.10.2017 but, it went in vain.  Therefore, prayed for allow the complaint.

               

3.     After service of notice, OPs have appeared through Sri. B.S.S Advocate and filed version.  According to the version filed by the OP No.1 and 2, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The OPs have already settled the claim of the complainant on the basis of survey report.  The complainant had taken private car package policy from the OPs for his Maruti Swift LDI under certificate No.MOP4190072000100 for a period of 28.02.2017 to 27.02.2018 subject to terms and conditions.  The claim was lodged for accidental damage to the insured vehicle on 11.06.2017 and the claim was duly registered and an IRDAI licensed surveyor was appointed to assess the damage caused to the vehicle, who assessed the admissible liability of the OP No.1 and 2 to an extent of Rs.34,926/-, the same was settled for Rs.34,620/- directly in favour of the repairer on cashless basis vide electronic funds Transfer vide UTR No.CITIN17844705667 dated 30.10.2017.  It is submitted that, the Hon’ble National Commission in Nand Kishore Jaiswal Vs. National Insurance co. Ltd., III (2009) CPJ 194 (NC) has held that, the surveyor’s report is valuable document and it should be given in due credence unless there are adequate reasons to discard the same.  The relevant excerpt is reproduced below:

“In a catena of judgment by the National Commission and the Apex Court, it has been held that surveyor’s report is a valuable document and it should be given due credence unless there are adequate reasons to discard the same.  In this connection we would like to cite an extract of the latest judgment of national commission which was pronounced on 15.12.2008 in RP No.2212 of 2004 United India Insurance Co Ltd., Vs. A. Sreedhar Reddy, wherein it has been observed as under:

 

 “As per settled law the report of the surveyor is an important document which cannot be brushed aside and in this case nothing has been shows to us to take the figure of loss other than the one arrive at by the surveyor”.

      

It is further submitted that, the Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co Ltd., Vs. New Good Luck Retarding Works III (2009) CPJ 262 (NC) has held that the report of surveyor is an important document and the same cannot be brushed aside easily without any valid jurisdiction or any report contrary.  The relevant excerpt is reproduced below:

“There is no dispute as severally held by this Commission and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the report of the surveyor is an important document, which cannot be brushed aside easily without any valid jurisdiction or any report contrary”. 

 

It is further submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri Venkatswara Syndicate Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and another reported as (2009) 8 SCC 507 has held as under:

“The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors.  Whenever a loss is reported by the insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assess the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim.  Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises.  The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured.  There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them.”

 

There is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to A-7 and closed his side.  OPs have examined one Sri.V. Harishankar, Executive – Legal as DW-1 and no documents have been got marked to disprove the case of the complaint.    

 

5. Heard the arguments.

 

6.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant proves that, the vehicle was insured with the OPs and the policy was in force on the date of accident and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        7. Our findings on the above points are as follows.

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of Maruthi Swift LDI Car bearing Registration No.KA-04 ME-0315 and the same was insured with OP No.1 and 2 under POS Package policy bearing No.MOP4190072 valid for the period from 28.02.2017 to 27.02.2018.  The above said vehicle met with an accident on Challakere-Bellary road.  The same has been intimated to the OP No.1 and 2.  At the time of accident, the policy was in force.  After the intimation received by the OPs, they have appointed Surveyor for assessment of the damage caused to the vehicle.  As per the Surveyor’s report, the damage caused to the vehicle to an extent of Rs.34,926/-.  The OP No.1 and 2 have send an amount of Rs.34,620/- to OP No.3 on 30.10.2017.  But as per the estimation made by the OP No.3, the cost of the repair of the said vehicle is of Rs.1,05,000/-.  Accordingly, the complainant has paid the entire amount to OP No.3 and took the vehicle from OP No.3.  But as per the version filed by the OP No.1 and 2, they have sent an amount to the OP No.3, but the same has not been intimated by the complainant.  The OP No.3 has collected full repair charges from the complainant.  It is the duty of the OP No.1 and 2 to pay the insurance amount to the complainant.  The decision submitted by the OP No.1 and 2 stating that, the Surveyor’s report is the relevant document and it should be given due credence to the survey report. We should give more respect to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission.  But here the case is on hand that, the OPs have not produced any survey report to believe the version of the OPs.  If the OPs have produced the survey report, then only the above decisions are applicable, but the OPs never produced any report before this Forum, they have simply stated in the version, written arguments and affidavit but not produced any piece of paper to disprove the case of the complainant.  The complainant has proved his case by producing documents.      

 

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and the affidavits, version and documents submitted by both parties.  According to the documents produced by the complainant, it clearly shows that, the complainant is the RC owner of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-04 ME-0315, the same has been insured with the OP No.1 and 2.  The above said vehicle met with an accident near Challakere – Bellary road.  The policy was in force as on the date of accident.  Accordingly, the complainant left his car before OP No.3 for repair.  The complainant has paid Rs.2,500/- to bring the car from the accident place to garage and intimated the same to OP No.1 and 2.  According to the version filed by the OPs, they have appointed surveyor for estimation of the damage caused to the vehicle.  The surveyor has submitted his report to the OP No.1 and 2 and as per the report, the cost of the repair charges is of Rs.34,620/-.  Accordingly, the OPs have stated that, they have sent the same to OP No.3, but the documents produced by the complainant that, the OP No.1 and 2 have not sent any amount to the OP No.3.  The complainant has paid the entire repair charges to OP No.3 and took the vehicle.  The Advocate for OP No.1 and 2 informed that, as per the survey report they have send the amount to OP No.3, but they have not produced any document before this Forum as to whether, they send amount to OP No.3 and the OPs have relied on a decision reported before the Hon’be National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  But the OP No.1 and 2 have not produced any survey report before this Forum to disprove the case of the complainant.  Hence, at this stage, the decision relied on by the OP No.1 and 2 are not applicable to the case on hand.  The complainant has produced Ex.A-1 to A-7.  Ex.A-3 to A-6 are the relevant documents and those documents shows that, the repair charges is of  Rs.1,05,000/-. As per Ex.A-5, the policy was in force at the time of accident.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled for the compensation.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as partly affirmative. 

10.   Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP NO.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. 

Complaint filed as against OP No.3 is hereby dismissed. 

 

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

 

(This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 11/10/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signature)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri.V. Harishankar, Executive – Legal by filing affidavit evidence

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal Notice dated 26.10.2017
02	Ex-A-2:-	4 postal receipts, 1 postal acknowledgement and returned postal cover
03	Ex-A-3:-	Job Card dated 04.10.2017
04	Ex.A-4:-	5 Tax Invoice dated 04.10.2017
05	Ex.A-5:-	Certificate cum policy schedule
06	Ex.A-6:-	Service estimate
07	Ex.A-7:-	Driving license

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.