Date of filing:8.5.2014.
Date of disposal:20.1.2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.
C.C.No.112 of 2014
Between:
M/s Srinivasa Transporters, Rep., by its Managing Partner I.Suri Babu, S/o Raghavaiah, Hindu, 57 years, Business, R/o D.No.48-16-12D, Behind Laila Complex, Mahanadu Ending, Jawahar Auto Nagar, Vijayawada – 7.
.… Complainant.
AND
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep., by its Service Centre Manager, SVC, City Branch Office No.4 Premises, D.No.64-9-2, 1st Floor, S.B.H. Complex, Near Eenadu, M.G.Road, Patamata, Vijayawada – 10.
.… Opposite Party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 6.1.2015, in the presence of Sri M.Samba Siva Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri V.V.S.Sai Babu, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 16 TC 3456 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party for a period of one year commencing from 31.3.2012 to 30.3.2013 for a sum of Rs.21,78,947/-. During the existence of the policy, i.e., on 27.3.2013 the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident as a result of which the vehicle was badly damaged and became unfit for transportation. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite party who inturn appointed a spot surveyor. The surveyor came to the scene of offence, assessed the damage, took photographs and submitted report to the opposite party. On receipt of the said report the opposite party addressed a letter dated 24.7.2013 to the complainant stating that the claim is pending for want of some documents. The complainant submitted the same to the opposite party and with the consent of the opposite party the complainant carried out repairs to the damaged vehicle and incurred an expenditure of Rs.8,12,102/-. The complainant also spent a sum of Rs.2,03,675/- towards repairs to the trailor. Originally the surveyor assessed the damages at Rs.15,79,923.50ps vide his report dated 17.6.2013. The complainant in all paid Rs.10,15,777/- towards repairs charges with the knowledge of the opposite party. But the surveyor of the opposite party mentioned a sum of Rs.5,74,287/- in his final report dated 17.6.2013 and the opposite party approved the claim for a sum of Rs.5,58,000/- only. The complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party requesting to consider the matter once again as there was difference of Rs.2,75,500/- in between the approved claim amount and the bills issued by Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. Accordingly the matter was referred to the Regional Office of the opposite party and they also disallowed the claim of the complainant vide their letter dated 3.9.2013. The complainant affected repairs with the consent of the opposite party only and there is lot of difference in the expenditure incurred by him and the claim approved by the opposite party. The complainant also incurred loss due to delay in settlement of claim besides mental agony in roaming around the opposite party time and again, which amounts to clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,15,777/- towards the repair charges of the damaged vehicle/trailor along with interest at 12% per annum from 17.5.2013 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for delay in settlement of claim along with interest at 12% per annum from 17.5.2013 till date and to pay costs.
2. The version of the opposite party is in brief:
The opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant has informed that his lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 3456 met with an accident near Reliance Petrol Bunk of Akupamula Village within the limits of Munagala Police Station of Nalgonda District. Immediately after receiving the claim intimation the opposite party had appointed a spot surveyor to note down cause of action and loss caused to the insured vehicle. Subsequently the opposite party appointed a final surveyor to assess the actual loss caused to the insured vehicle. The IRDA licensed surveyor M/s VKG Engineering and Surveyors inspected and surveyed the insured vehicle at M/s Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited and M/s Vishnu Auto Body Builder, Vijayawada and that they have carefully scrutinized, discussed and assessed the loss at Rs.6,32,160/- including spare parts, labour charges and arrived the net loss after deducting policy excess at Rs.3,000/- and salvage of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards spares and paint to cabin. As per survey report the opposite party has assessed the actual loss for Rs.5,58,000/- towards full and final settlement of claim on repair basis and informed the same to the complainant and issued a discharge voucher for Rs.5,58,000/- to the complainant and the complainant has submitted the discharge voucher without prejudice and rights. The complainant has not satisfied with the above said amount. Again the higher authorities has scrutinized the entire record and obtained clarification from the surveyor and totaling the amount works out for Rs.1,76,857/-, whereas the complainant has mentioned the total as Rs.2,75,000/-. The surveyor stated that the spares claimed by the complainant are not at all figuring in the original estimation given to the repairs. Rest of the spares assessed by him are listed. As per surveyor the other parts such as fuel filter assy, water pump and injector, cr.system were not damaged and hence they disallowed the same from the assessment. The claim of the complainant is excessive without any basis. The opposite party cannot pay more than the amount recommended by the surveyor. The opposite party is always ready and willing to pay the net loss of Rs.5,58,000/- as per recommendations of higher authorities. The surveyor has assessed the loss as per IRDA guidelines and as per the policy terms and conditions. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant gave his affidavit and one Sri V.Vishnu, Third Party filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.20. On behalf of the opposite party Sri K.Ramesh Babu, Divisional Manager filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.10.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
towards the complainant in not accepting the claim of the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand the complainant is the owner of the vehicle under Ex.A.3 bearing registration AP 16 TC 3456 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party under Ex.A.4 for a period of one year commencing from 31.3.2012 to 30.3.2013 for a sum of Rs.20,78,947/-. While the policy is in existence, on 27.3.2013 the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged and became unfit for transportation. Ex.A.5 FIR evidences about the accident. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party and the opposite party appointed a spot surveyor and he assessed the damage, took photographs and submitted his report to the opposite party under Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7. On receipt of the same the opposite party addressed a letter dated 24.7.2013 under Ex.A.12 to the complainant stating that the claim is pending for want of some documents. The complainant says that he submitted the same to the opposite party and with the consent of the opposite party he carried out repairs to the damaged vehicle and he incurred an expenditure of Rs.8,12,102/- under Ex.A.10 and Rs.2,30,675/- under Ex.,A.11 towards repair to the said vehicle. The complainant in all paid Rs.10,15,777/- for repairs with the knowledge of the opposite party. But the surveyor of the opposite party assessed the loss at Rs.5,74,287/- in his final report dated 17.6.2013 under Ex.A.7 and the opposite party approved the claim for a sum of Rs.5,58,000/-. The complainant addressed a letter Ex.A.8 to the opposite party requesting to consider the matter once again as there was difference of Rs.2,75,500/- in between the approved claim amount and the bills issued by Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. The matter was referred to the Regional Officer of the opposite party and they also dissolved the claim of the complainant vide their letter dated 3.9.2013 under Ex.A.14. The opposite party issued a letter under Ex.A.15 dated 6.1.2014 requesting the complainant to send discharge voucher duly signed and KYC documents for payment of the claim. But the complainant was not responded. The opposite party once again sent a letter requesting the complainant to send the discharge voucher duly signed along with bank details, KYC documents, copy of pan card and address proof to submit within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. The complainant sent a letter under Ex.A.16 dated 7.1.2014 stating that the repairs are carried out at the authorized dealers workshop i.e., M/s Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited of M/s Ashok Leyland. On the due instruction of the surveyor they also dismantle all the damaged parts and requested the opposite party to review the genuinity of the claim and the repair process. Again the complainant addressed a letter Ex.A.17 dated 18.2.2014 requesting the opposite party to settle the claim immediately without delay or else actions will be taken in the court of law. The opposite party addressed a letter to the complainant on 14.3.2014 stating that the competent authority of opposite party as already approved the claim for Rs.5,58,000/- and the same was informed to the complainant In response to the letter of the complainant dated 7.8.2013 the Regional Office of the opposite party has sent clarification with regard to the assessment of loss and the complainant had sent conditional discharge voucher with remarks (without prejudice) for payment of claim. The opposite party requested the complainant to send the enclosed discharge voucher duly signed without any condition to enable the opposite party to pay the claim. Ex.A.18 is discharge voucher sent by the opposite party to the complainant for full and final settlement of the claim for Rs.5,58,000/-. On several communications made in between the complainant and the opposite party and as the claim is not settled the complainant got issued legal notice Ex.A.19 dated 18.4.2014 demanding the opposite party to pay Rs.10,15,777/- towards repairs and Rs.5,00,000/- for delay in processing the claim to pay interest at the rate of 25% per annum from 1.6.2013 till the date of realization.
7. The opposite party stated that the surveyor informed that the spares claimed by the complainant are not at all figuring in the original estimation given to the repairs. Rest of the spares assessed by him are listed. As per surveyor the other parts such as fuel filter assy, water pump and injector, cr.system were not damaged. Hence they are dissolved from the assessment. The same facts are sent to complainant under Ex.B.8 dated 28.8.2013. The opposite party has no right to settle the claim more than the amount recommended by the surveyor. The opposite party is ready and willing to pay the net loss of Rs.5,58,000/- as recommended by the higher authorities. The same was intimated to the complainant under Ex.B.10 dated 10.6.2014. The surveyor has assessed the loss as per IRDA guidelines and as per the policy terms and conditions.
8. We the Forum agreeing with the submissions of the opposite party and took into consideration the IRDA surveyor’s assessment for loss of Rs.5,58,000/- as per terms and conditions of the policy.
9. The opposite party relied on a decision held in 2014(1) CPR 415 NC Mrs.Sunanda Kishor Bhand and Anr., complainants Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, opposite party. That no reason for discarding the evidence of the surveyor was suggested, the surveyor appears to be a guileless person. It is well known that the report of surveyor is the crucial evidence. In order to scrub it strong reasons are required.
10. In view of the above circumstances we came to an opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to receive excess amount other than assessed by the IRDA Surveyor. The complainant is entitled only for Rs.5,58,000/- as assessed by the IRDA Surveyor.
POINT No.3:-
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs and the opposite party is directed to issue cheque for Rs.5,58,000/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor within one month from the date of order.
Dictated to the Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 20th day of January, 2015.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
P.W.1 I.Suri Babu, D.W.1 K.Ramesh Babu,
Managing Partner Divisional Manager
Of the Complainant, of the opposite party
(by affidavit) (by affidavit)
P.W.2 V.Vishnu,
Third Party,
(by affidavit)
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A.1 01.04.2002 Photocopy of Partnership deed.
Ex.A.2 15.04.2008 Photocopy of General Power of Attorney.
Ex.A.3 11.04.2011 Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.
Ex.A.4 . . Motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule.
Ex.A.5 08.04.2013 Photocopy of F.I.R.
Ex.A.6 17.06.2013 Photocopy of Motor Final Survey Report.
Ex.A.7 17.06.2013 Photocopy of letter from the VKG Engineers & Surveyors to the opposite party.
Ex.A.8 28.03.2013 Quotation issued by Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited, Gudavalli Village, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna
District..
Ex.A.9 30.04.2013 Bill issued by Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited, Gudavalli Village, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. .
Ex.A.10 16.05.2013 Photocopy of receipt voucher issued by Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited, Vijayawada.
Ex.A.11 17.05.2013 Invoice issued by Vishnu Auto Body Buildings, Vijayawada.
Ex.A.12 24.07.2013 Letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.13 28.08.2013 E-mail letter.
Ex.A.14 03.09.2013 Letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.15 06.01.2014 Letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.16 07.01.2014 Letter from the complainant to the Service Centre Manager of the opposite party.
Ex.A.17 18.02.2014 Photocopy of letter from the complainant to the Service Centre Manager of the opposite party.
Ex.A.18 14.03.2014 Letter from the opposite party to the complainant along with discharge voucher and E-payment mandate form.
Ex.A.19 18.04.2014 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.20 19.04.2014 Postal receipt.
On behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B.1 . . Motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule.
Ex.B.2 17.06.2013 Letter from the VKG Engineers & Surveyors to the opposite party along with motor final survey report.
Ex.B.3 17.06.2013 Letter from the VKG Engineers & Surveyors to the opposite party.
Ex.B.4 24.06.2013 Own damage claim scrutiny sheet to be forwarded to Regional office, Visakhapatnam.
Ex.B.5 . . Photocopy of Discharge Voucher.
Ex.B.6 07.08.2013 letter from the complainant to the Service Centre of the opposite party.
Ex.B.7 20.08.2013 Photocopy of letter from the opposite party to the VKG Engineers & Surveyors, Secunderabad.
Ex.B.8 28.08.2013 Letter from the VKG Engineers & Surveyors, Secunderabad to the Regional Office of the opposite party at Visakhapatnam.
Ex.B.9 03.09.2013 photocopy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B.10 10.06.2014 Letter from the Regional Office of the opposite party at Visakhapatnam..
PRESIDENT(FAC)
