BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1044/2014
The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited., Branch Office, 3rd floor, Asian plaza, S.V.Patel Chowk, Gulbarga, Rep by its Branch Manager. Now Represented by its The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Regional Office, 5th floor, centenary building, M.G.Road, Rep by its Manager . | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Smt.Urmila, W/o late Rajesh Dagar, major, R/o, M/s Jai Shri Hanuman Medicals and General stores, S.V.Patel chowk, Station Area, Gulbarga-585102. | …Respondent/s |
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA .C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite party being aggrieved by the Order dated 30.12.2013 passed in CC.No.71/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Gulbarga and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is the registered owner of Chevrolet Tavera Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-32-N-0843, which has been validly insured with the OP vide policy bearing No:1407712311001418, which was valid for the period from 05.10.2011 to 04.10.2012. Further, it is the case of the complainant that on 16.02.2012, the said vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident, on Khanapur-Goa Road at 8.00 p.m and a case has been registered in this regard and in the said accident, the vehicle of the complainant was damaged and on the same day, the complainant has intimated about the said accident to the OP and the surveyor of the OP came and inspected the vehicle and after survey, the surveyor asked the complainant to remove the said vehicle from the spot and get it repaired. Accordingly, the complainant shifted his vehicle to VKG Motors at Gulbarga for its repair and the complainant has spent Rs.4,25,737/- for its repair and thereafter the complainant has submitted his claim to the OP along with all required documents and the OP assured to settle the claim. But, the OP has failed to settle the claim of the complainant inspite of repeated requests. So, this act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the OP.
3. The OP has appeared through its counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing its written version wherein, except admitting that the complainant is the registered owner of above said vehicle and the same being validly insured with the OP for the period from 05.10.2011 to 04.10.2012, has simply denied all other averments made by the Complainant in his complaint. According to the OP, its surveyor has assessed the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant is at Rs.2,80,985.50/- and the OP has offered the complainant for settlement of the claim for the said amount subject to production of KYC documents sought for by the OP by the complainant. But, the complainant has not produced the said document, so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.4,25,737/- as compensation along with 9% interest. Further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. Heard partly from appellant side.
7. Perused the appeal memo order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that as per office note there is a delay of 193 days in filing the appeal and this Commission without any order on delay application. Heard the matter and issued notice to the Respondent. After service of notice the Respondent not appeared before this Commission hence, placed exparte. Hence, before going to the merit we have to decide the delay condonation application filed by the Appellant.
8. Appellant has filed delay condonation application u/s 5 of Limitation Act and sworn affidavit that after receiving the certified copies of order of the District Commission advocate forwarded the same to the Branch Office at Gulbarga along with opinion and at Gulbarga after scrutinizing forwarded the papers to regional offices at Bangalore for taking necessary action. The Regional office has taken the opinion from one senior advocate Bangalore and after receipt of opinion, the concerned officers misplaced the entire file and after same time he has left the company without brought to the knowledge of Higher officer and on receipt of execution summons only, appellant came to know that the fact and hence, there was delay in filing the appeal which was purely administrative, bonafide and unintentional. We have not satisfied with the reasons narrated in the sworn affidavit because these all are flimsy grounds such types of practice are used by the Insurance Company to drag the matters. Moreover, as per Consumer Protection Act the appellant has to file the appeal before this Commission within 30 days from the date of order. However, the appellant has filed this appeal after lapse of 193 days which is inordinate delay in our opinion. Hence considering the facts and discussions made here we are not satisfied with the reasons stated by the appellant in sworn affidavit along with delay application. Hence the matter is liable to be dismissed on delay only. Now coming to the merit, we have perused the appeal memo order passed by the District Commission we noticed that it is not in dispute that Respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-32/N-0843 and said vehicle insured with the appellant company for the period from 05.10.2011 to 04.10.2012. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 16.04.2012 and totally damaged. It is also not in dispute that after intimation to the appellant, the appellant had appointed a surveyor and surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.2,80,985/-.
9. The allegation of Respondent is that appellant company has not settle the claim. Per-contra appellant company contended that in spite of issuing the notices for proceedings KYC documents respondent has not responded. Hence, the claim of the Respondent has been closed as “withdrawn”.
10. Perused the order passed by the District Commission we noticed that it is an evident that after accident Respondent has repaired the said vehicle in the duly Authorized Service Centre of the said company and also Respondent has produced cash/credit bills pertaining to the spare parts and also labour charges which was paid by the Respondent towards repairs of the said vehicle. However, surveyor assessed the loss after deduction and fixed the liability to the tune of Rs.2,80,985/-only on the appellant company. We agree that surveyor is important evidence but it is not sacrosanct. Moreover, the Respondent has proved allegations by the co-egent/relevant documents and on other hand insurer had not challenged the bills produced by the Respondent.
11. In course of arguments and also in appeal memo appellant company as submitted that they are ready to settle the matter as per the survey report. However, in our opinion if the Respondent has proved that he had spent an amount of Rs.4,25,737/- towards repair of the vehicle the appellant company is not justify in offering to settle the claim as per the surveyor report. Hence, considering the facts and discussions made here we are of the opinion that Respondent is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,25,737/- spent by him to repair the vehicle along with interest. Hence order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly, we proceed the following:
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed as barred by time and on merits only. No order as to cost.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the Complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
P*
