This Complaint coming before us for final hearing on       25-02-11 in the presence of Sri K.Haranadha Raju, advocate for complainant and of Sri S.A.Khadar, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

                The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking payment of Rs.8,860/- towards the repairs effected by him, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the damages, Rs.5000/- towards costs of complaint from opposite party.

2.      In brief the averments of complaint are these:

                The complainant is owner of Santro XL car bearing No.AP 7 AJ 4467 of 2005 model.  The complainant insured the said vehicle with opposite party and the policy was in force from 25-01-09 to 24-01-10.  The complainant on 06-12-09 while reversing the vehicle from parking area some unknown persons had thrown the gate and due to which i.v. back glass was broken and also damage to the paint on back side of the car.  The complainant intimated the same to the opposite party, who inturn appointed one Ch.Nageswara Rao as surveyor.  The complainant on 12-12-09 in the presence of said surveyor got estimated the cost of the repair of said vehicle for Rs.9,610/- at M/s.Padma Motors, Guntur.  With the knowledge of opposite party and surveyor, the complainant purchased necessary parts for Rs.4,410/- and got repaired the vehicle by paying Rs.4,450/- to M/s.Padma Motors, Guntur.  The opposite party insisted the complainant to accept the claim for Rs.2,800/-.  The complainant on 29-03-10 gave a notice to opposite party for which, it gave an evasive reply.  The attitude of opposite party in not settling the claim as estimated by its surveyor amounted to deficiency of service.

3.      The contention of opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

                The surveyor who was deputed to assess the damage, assessed for Rs.2,800/- for the damage of glass on back of the car. The complainant got his vehicle repaired along with some other repairs also.   In his intimation, the complainant stated that insured vehicle’s back glass alone was broken.  In order to gain more money towards other minor damages, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.8,860/-.  As per survey report, the opposite party is ready to pay Rs.2,800/-.  Thus there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. 

4.             Ex.A1 to A11 and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite party respectively.

5.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. To what relief?

6.      Admitted facts in this case are these:

1. The complainant insured the vehicle AP 7AJ 4467 with the opposite party.
2. The policy was in force from 25-01-09 to 24-01-10.
3. The complainant submitted his claim (Ex.A1=Ex.B1 and A5).
4. The opposite party appointed one Ch.Nageswara Rao as surveyor to assess the damage.
5. The opposite party intended to settle the claim at Rs.2,800/-.
6. There was exchange of notices between the complainant and opposite party (Ex.A10 and A11).

7.      POINT No.1

                The dispute is regarding the quantum of damage as seen from the admitted facts. In the claim form marked as Ex.A1 submitted by complainant to opposite party on 07-12-09 mentioned the damage “from the parking place of Kamalesh Towers going to outside at the time of reverse, apartment gate moving and at the same time reversing car resulted i.v. back glass broken.  Please arrange survey.”   But in Ex.A2 estimation slip labour charges were included for tinkering of dickey, painting of dickey and rear bumper amounting to Rs.4,800/- were included.  Damage to the bumper and damage of painting to dickey did not find place in Ex.A1 dt.07-12-09.  The contention of opposite party under those circumstances that the complainant wanted to get repaired some other damage is having considerable force.  At the same time, the opposite party is also not justified in settling the claim at Rs.2,800/- as the estimation was for Rs.9,610/- as seen from Ex.A2. But in Ex.A5 claim form dt.Nil, it was mentioned that painting on rear side was also damaged. Ex.A1 was given at the earliest opportunity.  Under those circumstances placing reliance on Ex.A1 rather than on Ex.A5 will meet ends of justice.  Under those circumstances awarding a sum of Rs.5000/- towards damage sustained to the car and Rs.500/- towards costs of complaint will meet ends of justice.  Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of complainant.

8.      POINT No.2

                In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards damage sustained to the car of complainant.
2. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.500/- towards costs of complaint.
3. The above orders shall be complied within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization.

Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum this the 3^rd day of March, 2011.

          MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:   

                                                                                                PRESIDENT