BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th May 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.197/2013
(Admitted on 15.7.2013)
Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn,
A body corporate having its Head office,
At Bangalore and a Divisional office at Bejai,
Mangalore.
Represented by its Divisional controller,
Sri. Mahesh.M on behalf of
The Managing Director,
Karnataka Road Transport corpn.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. ARR)
VERSUS
The United India Insurance Company,
Division office at No.4, 1st floor,
9.19/1, South end road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560004,
Represented by its Divisional manager.
…. Opposite Party
(Advocate for Opposite Party by Sr. AKK)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant claims its Volvo bus bearing No. KA.01.F.8534 insured with Opposite Party for the period from 22.4.2009 to 21.4.2010 its way from Mangalore to Hyderbad made with an accident in an head on collusion resulting was the failed by the drivers bus bearing no. KA.19.C4369 on 27.12.2009 at Pavanje. On 29.12.2009 complainant representative informed Opposite Party of the accident M/s Lathangi Automobiles Pvt.ltd, Bangalore, the Authorised service agent of the Volvo company assessed the damages vehicle by preliminary original estimate on 4.1.2010 and 5.1.2010 and assess damage at Rs.18,67,219.85 by letter dated 8.1.2010 to the Opposite Party was requested to arrange person of the vehicle M/s Lathangi Automobiles Ptv. Ltd. On 18.1.2010 complainant lodged its claimed with Opposite Party along with the copies of R.C complaint lodged to police, insurance policy copy, and driving licence of the driver of estimate. On 29.1.2010 complainant sent the original seat repair estimate assessed by M/s Haritha Seating Systems ltd to the Opposite Party estimate cost of Rs.39,660.49. The Opposite Party deputed one Mr. P. Krishnamurthy has assess the damages caused the vehicle the seat repair cast total for Rs.40,417.91 and the original tax invoice repairs Rs.17,08,958.54 is also sent to Opposite Party but Opposite Party failed to comply with request for payment. Despite this Opposite Party because payment was not made and numerous claims were pending in respect of different vehicles and by letter dated 24.8.2011 to complainant Opposite Party mentioned that the complainant had not complied with the requirement within time limit even after the vehicle is repaired and the documents are submitted after a gap of more than 1 year. Contending that the complainant of the requirements of Opposite Party seeks directions for payment of amounts claiming interest at the rate of 18% p.a and also compensation of Rs.50,000/ against Opposite Party.
2. Opposite Party filed version claiming complaint is barred by limitation. The policy issued is admitted but is subject to terms and conditions and exclusion clauses. The claim received on 8.1.2010 in respect of mentioned insurance company, without admitting the liability thereafter the Opposite Party deputed Mr. Krishnamoorthy an IRDA approved Surveyor and loss Assessor to assess the loss, and due to accident. The said surveyor has assessed on the basis of actual damages due to the alleged accident an estimate of loss of Rs.9,78,113.19 and he filed report on 01.03.2011. Opposite Party further contents at the survey of vehicle is not a completed in time as the complainant themselves failed to submit the documents within time and documents were submitted in piecemeal on different dates over the year. Hence seeks dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of the above complaint the complainant Sri. Mahesh M, filed affidavit evidence as (CW1) and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C26 as detailed in the annexure here below. Sri. Sachin, (CW2) Deputy Manager, also filed affidavit evidence answered the interrogatories served on him. Sri. Jaishanth Kumar M.B, (CW3) Depot Manager, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Pundalik M Nayak, (RW1) Division in charge, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R3 as detailed in the annexure here below. Mr. P. Krishna Murthy, (RW2) Engineer, also filed affidavit evidence answered the interrogatories served on him.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i) : Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS No. (i): The insurance coverage issued to complainants vehicle mentioned in the complainant under the policy issued by Opposite Party is admitted by Opposite Party hence there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties is established.
6. The claim made by complainant for honouring the claim for the damages caused to the vehicle in the accident is not honoured by Opposite Party on the grounds documents not supplied in time with the requirements as such there is dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) C.P. Act. Hence we answer point no. 1 in the affirmative.
7. POINTS NO.(ii): As mentioned the complainant had produced Ex.C1 intimation sent on behalf of complainant to Opposite Party as per Ex.C1 dated 29.12.2009 accident dated 27.12.2009. The policy coverage as mentioned earlier is admitted by Opposite Party. Only ground asserted by Opposite Party is of complainant not complied with requirements of production of documents within reasonable time and the claimed alleged late submission. It was pointed out that despite repeated requests to Opposite Party surveyor has not surveyed and assessed damages. Ex.R2 is P.Krishana Murthy, surveyor motor final survey report dated 01.03.2011 he assessed liability at Rs.9,78,113.19. The report mentioned the date of allotment for survey on 21.1.2010 and date of admitted survey as 22.1.2010. He has deducted 50% on rubber items an examined the glass recovered value payment and 5% deduction on other items as the vehicle is of 2009 model.
8. Ex.C14 is copy of preliminary accident repairs estimate sent by Lathangi automobiles pvt ltd and estimate cost of Rs.11,18,687.32.
9. Ex.C13 is letter addressed to Divisional Manager of KSRTC Mangalore Division by Opposite Parties that it is dated 24.8.2011 in which as the reason claimed mentioned by Opposite Party as to the insurance claim of the vehicle No. KA.01 F.8534 on 27.12.2009 is mentioned in follows
With reference to the captioned subject, we would like to inform you that on going through the claim, we observe that you have not complied with the requirements within time limit even after the vehicle is repaired and the documents are submitted after a gap of more than a year, hence we regret our inability to entertain the claim
10. The learned counsel for complainant pointed to Ex.C10 the letter addressed by Opposite Party No.2 the Divisional controller KSRTC Mangalore Division, Bejai, Mangalore it is dated 05.10.2010 the documents mentions the subject as outstanding claims and reference no. 3441/10.11 a letter dated 22.9.2010 the division controller KSRTC Mangalore. With reference in non payment of other 25 claims in this documents at serial No. 13 the entry pertaining to the percent accident of vehicle 8534 is mentioned and in remarks/reason for pendency is mentioned as
13. | 8534 | 27.12.2009 | 2207 | Survey report awaited from P. Krishnamurthy cell No.9845079529 |
Thus even as per this letter on 22.9.2010 the claim was pending due to the cause of the surveyor did not file his report.
11. Ex.C9 is the letter addressed to Opposite Party by complainant mentioning that details are enclosed the letter dated 22.9.2010 seeking earlier settlement of the claim.
12. Ex.C8 is another address Opposite Party by complainant dated 24.4.2010 in respect of the present accident claim mentioning on the original documents wear sent to Opposite Party by letter and reference dated 8.4.2010. Thus it is clear that despite on the claims and request and sending of the documents Opposite Party did not settle the claim of the complainant.
13. In fact with caused mentioned at Ex.C3 the copy of the letter dated 18.1.2010 address to Opposite Party by complainant had mention of copies of RC book, certified copy of the driver DL, copy of the complainant and FRI, estimate by Lathangi, zerox copy of the policy and also copy of the intimation sent to Opposite Party about the accident. As rightly pointed out for complainant despite complainant with on the requirements by complainant, it is clear that was inordinate delay in by the surveyor P Krishana murthy in report and despite all the documents sought by Opposite Party provided by the complainant the Opposite Party claim ground for documents non-payment as not furnished. Of course that does not amount to repudiation as no ground is mentioned and no mention of refusal to by Opposite Party. Hence Opposite Party in not making payment in respect of the assessed amount due to complainant in respect to the accident. Hence under the terms and policy which amounts to deficiency in service, hence points no.2 answered in the affirmative.
14. Point No.3: The complainant as claims the total invoice value of Rs.17,08,958.54 of Opposite Party the assess in the loss the surveyor assessed in liability of Opposite Party at Rs. 9,78,113.19. after due deduction on rubber items and also waived 5% on the other items. Hence complainant in our view entitled for this amount.
15. There was inordinate delay caused by Opposite Party in settling the claim on the reason by raising vague grounds by Opposite Party which has no basis already mentioned. Hence Opposite Party shall be directed pay interest to complainant on this amount at 12% from 23.9.2010 till the date of payment. Opposite Party also directed to pay Rs.25,000/ as compensation and also another sum of Rs.10,000/ as cost the complainant.
Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed with cost. Opposite Party directed to pay Rs. 9,78,113.19 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% from 23.9.2010.
2. Opposite Party shall also pay Rs.25,000/ as compensation.
3. cost fixed at Rs.10,000/ .
4. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 dictated by President to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th May 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Sri. Mahesh M,
CW2: Sri. Sachin, Deputy Manager,
CW3: Sri. Jaishanth Kumar M.B, Depot Manager
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Fax message vide letter No.KST: MND:TR:R&T:5011:09.10 dated 29.12.2009 sent by complainant to Opposite Party.
Ex.C2: Letter dated 8.1.2010 sent by complainant to Opposite Party.
Ex.C3: Letter dated 18.1.2010 sent by complainant to Opposite Party forwarding with claim papers together with documents.
Ex.C4: Policy copy bearing No.070400/31/09/01/00000555 and claim form.
Ex.C5: Letter dated 29.1.2010 sent by complainant to Opposite Party.
Ex.C6: Letter dated 22.4.2010 sent by complainant to Opposite Party along with tax invoice.
Ex.C7: Letter dated 22.4.2010.
Ex.C8: Letter dated 26.5.2010 sent by complainant to Opposite Party along with 2 tax invoices issued by M/s Lathangi Automobiles.
Ex.C9: Reminder letter dated 23.9.2010 sent by complainant to Opposite Party.
Ex.C10: Letter dated 5.10.2010 issued by Opposite Party to complainant intimating the status of claims.
Ex.C11: Reminder letter dated 3.2.2011 sent by complainant to Opposite Party.
Ex.C12: Reminder letter dated 17.3.2011.
Ex.C13: Letter dated 24.8.2011 issued by Opposite Party to complainant repudiating the claim.
Ex.C14: Preliminary estimates issued by M/s Lathangi Automobiles for Rs.1118687.32.
Ex.C15: Preliminary estimates issued by M/s Lathangi Automobiles for Rs.747652.53.
Ex.C16: Tax invoice for Rs.1112972.84 issued by M/s Lathangi Automobiles.
Ex.C17: Tax invoice for Rs.595985.76 issued by the M/s Lathangi Automobiles.
Ex.C18: Receipt issued by M/s Haritha seating systems Ltd for Rs.40,417.00.
Ex.C19: Four tax invoices issued by M/S Haritha seating systems.
Ex.C20: Copy of the permit.
Ex.C21: Police F.I.R.
Ex.C22: Police Mahazer
Ex.C23: I.M.V report
Ex.C24: Sketch
Ex.C25 and 26: Postal acknowledgements.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1: Mr. Pundalik M Nayak, Division in charge
RW2: Mr. P. Krishna Murthy, Engineer
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: Insurance policy copy pertaining to Volvo bus bearing Registration No. KA.01.F.8534
Ex.R2: survey report of Mr. Krishna Murthy.
Ex.R3: Original bills of repair submitted by the complainant.
Dated: 30.05.2017 PRESIDENT
