Karnataka

Bidar

CC/39/2013

Achut s/o Prakash Biradar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

P M DESHPANDE

26 May 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                         C.C.No. 39/2013

 

                                                                                              Date of filing: 20/07/2013

 

                                                                                         Date of disposal : 26/05/2016.

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B

                                                                                          President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa  (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A.LL.B.

                                                                      Member

 

                                  

                                               

COMPLAINANT:              Achut, s/o Prakash Biradar,                                                           

                                          Age :Major,  Occ: Self employment,                

                                          R/o Holsamudra, Tq. Aurad (B),Dist.Bidar.

 

                                      (By Shri. Deshpande  P.M.,Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-            1. The Branch Manager,

                                           United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                              Branch Office, Main road,

                                              Near Ambedkar circle, Bidar-585401.

 

                                          2. M/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                              (Regd. H.O.) at 24, White road,

                                           Chennai-600014.

                                              Represented by Chief Executive.

                                           

                                         (O.P.No. 1 By Shri. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Adv.)  

                                         ( O.P.No.2 Exparte )

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

    The complainant has filed the complaint u/s.12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)  alleging  deficiency of service in the part of the O.Ps.  The origin and genesis of the case is as follows:

2.          That, the complainant had purchased a Tata 909 goods vehicle, later having been assigned Reg.no. KA 38 4435, under self employment scheme.  The vehicle was hypothecated with Tata Motors financial service Ltd., Gulbarga and had obtained insurance, vide policy no.070500/31-10-2001/00000/87 (comprehensive) from the O.P.wherein the declared value of the vehicle was Rs. 5,00,000/- and the date of validity was from            30-04-2010 to 29-04-2011.  While the matter stood as such, the vehicle on 12-12-2010, being driven by a valid D.L. holder, Vishnu Shinde, met with an accident in which the cabin and front portion of the vehicle was completely damaged.   Consequent upon the accident, police complaint was lodged with the jurisdictional Janawada P.S. u/s. 279, 337 & 338 of the I.P.C. and Cr.no.107/2010 was registered (Ex.P.15).  The vehicle was subjected to I.M.V. inspection vide Ex.P.14, wherein the damages sustained to the vehicle had been vividly recorded (Ex.P.14).

 

3.          It is further the case of the complainant that, he got the vehicle repaired to be put to use by M/s Manickbag Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.  (Authorised Dealers for TATA MOTORS), who had issued quotations vide Ex.P.20 and had ultimately charged a sum of Rs. 2,32,560/ (vide Ex.P.21) and parking charges of Rs. 20,000/- (vide Ex.P.12), where as the O.Ps only reimbursed a sum of Rs. 67,700/- as assessed by a surveyor deputed by the O.Ps vide Ex.R.1, which he had received under protest, where after, he had called upon the O.Ps to pay the differential amount vide legal notices dt. 03-03-2012 (Ex.P.1) and dt. 18-02-2013 (Ex.P.2).  Consequent upon the apathy of the Insurer to settle the just dues,  he is before this Forum.  The legal notices can be construed as his letters of protest.

 

4.              The O.P.no.2 in spite of service of the notice  did not appear before this Forum hence,  is placed exparte.  The O.P no.1 receiving the notice has put up appearance through it’s counsel and has filed written version duly verified, in which even though  O.P no1 admits the factum of accident and the damages to the vehicle there from, has stuck to the defence that, the O.P. Insurance Company has paid the amount of damages as per the assessment of the surveyor, who is an independent entity.  The O.P. no.1  further contend that, the complainant had received the assessed amount of Rs. 67,700/- and is precluded from claiming more compensation in terms of the policy issued by the Insurance Company.

5.            Both the sides have filed their respective evidence affidavits and written arguments reiterating their respective stands and have further filed documents relied upon by them as listed at the end of this order.

6.          The complainant’s side has further  filed a citation of Hon’ble State Commission of Chhattisgarh reported in 2010 (1) C.P.R. page-292, wherein it has been held that, the report of the surveyor would be subversient to the bills issued by the authorised dealer.

7.         Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and the citation quoted by the complainant the following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Does the complainant prove that there has been a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

 

2. Do the O.P.no.1 proves that  the O.P. Company has satisfied the just claims of the complainant?

 

 

3. Can the report of the surveyor assessing loss to the damages be held ultimate?

 

 

4. What order ?

 

8.          Before answering to the points quoted above, it may be put here on record that, this Forum painstakingly had suggested an amicable settlement that may be arrived by the parties outright from 29-12-2015, and the counsel appearing for the O.P no.1 was availing time to report as such. Ultimately, on 22/04/2016, the counsel for the O.P no.1 expressed his helplessness, owing to the non-response of his clients and hence, we are here to render the judgement basing on the principle of equity and natural justice, and our answers to the points are as follows:

 

 

      1.  In the Affirmative.

      2.  In the Negative.

      3.  In the Negative.

      4.  As per the final order for the following:

 

                                                :: R E A S O N S : :

 

9.          Since the points at 1 and 2 are interwined, we propose to answer both together.

 

             In the instant case, the O.P. is fairly in agreement with the contentions of the complainant as to the factum of the accident, the insurance policy obtained in respect of M.G.V. bearing no.K.A-38/4435, the damages sustained to the entire front portion(cabin) of the vehicle but claim that, the vehicle was subjected to inspection by their surveyor         Mr. Ajitkumar Kothari and said surveyor having assessed the loss due to damages sustained at Rs.67,700/- (Ex.R.1), they have paid such amount to the complainant / insured already and hence, their burden as a service provider has been discharged fully.  In other words, the Insurance Company a state instrumentality has relied heavily upon the surveyor’s report whole heartedly.  It is on record that, the vehicle met with an accident on            12-12-2010 still under valid insurance cover and it was left with the authorised dealer M/s Manickbag Automobiles (p) Ltd., Gulbarga, who at the initial stage had issued a quotation (Ex.P.20) describing the repairs to be undertaken in detail.  In this document, the total price of repair (including labour charges of Rs. 11,450/-) has been quoted  as amount of Rs.2,34,849/- but Rs.2,32,560/- has been collected by the authorised dealer towards the repair charges vide Ex.P.21.  Additionally, we also see a receipt of the same dealer at Ex.P.12, vide which a further sum of Rs.20,000/- has been collected as parking charges    (The complainant claims to have paid Rs.28,000/- on this head) which is quite mind bungling.  We fail to understand as to how, the authorised dealer accepting the damaged vehicle for repair, can levy a hefty charge as stated above towards parking and it appears to be an attempt to inflate the bill.

 

 

10.          Be it whatever, from Ex.R.1, relied upon by the O.P. , it is evident that, the damaged vehicle was inspected at the premises of the authorised dealer by the surveyor.  By that time, the details of the damages were known, so also the estimates of the dealer provided who was the service centre (Ex.P.20) in which the details of the parts, components, workmanship etc. were vividly explained, calculating a much bigger amount.  Had the surveyor or the Insurance Company been sincere and earnest, they could have confronted the officials of the service centre about the prices quoted.  None of them has raised up to the occasion and had left the poor insured/complainant in the lurch.   Hence, we answer the point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 in the negative.

 

11.             While proceeding to tackle the point no.3 mentioned earlier, we are afraid, the surveyor employed by the Insurance Company is found not be diligent, sincere or truthful and has submitted the report (Ex.R.1) in a most perfunctory manner.  We see in all the documents submitted with the case, the date of accident to be on 12-02-2010.  The surveyor but, in his report at Ex.R.1 records the date of accident as 13-02-2010.  Further in all documents, specially the R.C. book and I.M.V. report, the manufacturer of the damaged vehicle has been described as TATA MOTORS, where as in the surveyor’s report (Ex.R.1), the same has been described as EICHER MOTORS Ltd.  This glaring disparity raises big question had the surveyor really made a physical verification of the vehicle?  If so, how could not he distinguish a TATA vehicle from that of an EICHER make?  This aspect probabalises a single possibility-perhaps the surveyor’s report was prepared sitting in his office and later submitted to the Insurance Company in a routine manner.

 

12.         Next, from the quotation of Manickbag Automobiles(Ex.P.20) we see that, spare parts and components were replaced extensively and their prices (rates) were quoted vividly, exclusive of the tax levied.  How then, the surveyor, oblivious of the market economy slash the prices of components used to 1/3^rd of the original price quoted almost?  Truly, a preposterous action and hence we discard the surveyor’s report as perfunctory, untruthful and biased, taking a cue from the case law cited by the complainant, reported in 2010 (1) CPR-page-292 (Chhattisgarh State Commission ) – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. V/s Vivek Kumar Agarwal, in which, a similar situation had arisen and consequentially holding that the O.Ps are bound to reimburse the complainant the real amount charged by the repairing agency M/s Manikbag Automobiles, sans the amount already paid.  However, we hold that, there is no justification in awarding the parking charges as mentioned in Ex.P.12 and also propose to deduct 25% depreciation on the bill amount  at Rs.2,32,560/- together with Rs.67,700/- already paid and hence, we answer the point no.3 in negative and  proceed to pass the following:

 

: :   ORDER : :

 

              For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 is hereby allowed in part with costs against O.Ps.

 

              (a) The O.P. no.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.( Rs. 1,64,860/- minus a depreciation @ 25% Rs. 58,140/-)= 1,06,720/- (Rs. One lakh six thousand seven hundred twenty only) together with interest on the amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation.

 

               (b )  The O.Ps would  be liable to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.

 

                 Four weeks time is granted to fulfil this order.

 

 

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this  26^th  day of May-2016 )

 

 

                                    Sd/-                                                                                 Sd/-

                             Sri. Shankrappa H.                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                

                                  Member                                                                       President

 

                                                                                                                                                    

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

                                                                                                                              

1.Ex.P.1- Legal notice ( o/c) dt. 03-03-2012.

2.Ex.P.2- Legal notice (o/c) dt. 18-02-2013.

3.Ex.P.3- Insurance Policy (original )

4. Ex.P.4- Tax invoice of Manikbag Automobiles (copy) dt. 21-02-2011.

5. Ex.P.5-Cash Memo of Manickbag Automobiles dt. 18-02-2011.

6. Ex.P.6-Cash Memo of Manickbag Automobiles dt. 18-02-2011.

7. Ex.P.7-Cash Memo of Manickbag Automobiles dt. 18-02-2011.

8. Ex.P.8-Driving Licence endorsement by R.T.O.,Bidar (copy).

9. Ex.P.9-Receipt of R.T.O. in Form No.3 (copy).

10.Ex.P.10- Surveyor’s receipt (copy ).

11. Ex.P.11-Surveyor’s Bill (copy ).

12. Ex.P.12-Parking charges Bill of Manickbag Automobiles(copy ).

13. Ex.P.13-Payment receipt of Tata Motors (copy ).

14.Ex.P.14- I.M.V. report (copy ).

15.Ex.P.15-R.I.R. in Cr.no.107/10 of Janawada P.S., Bidar (copy ).

16 Ex.P.16- Driving Licence (copy ).

17 Ex.P.17-State permit of Transport department(copy ).

18 Ex.P.18- Authorisation of permit (copy ).

19 Ex.P.19- R.C.Book of KA-38/4435(copy )

20 Ex.P.20-Quotation of Manickbag Automobiles(copy ).

21 Ex.P.21-Final Bill of Manickbag Automobiles(copy ).

 

Documents produced by the Opponent.

 

Ex.R.1-  Surveyor’s report (original )

 

 

 

                                    Sd/-                                                                                 Sd/-

                       Sri. Shankrappa H.                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                

                                   Member                                                                  President