Date of filing: 21.06.2021

      Date of Disposal:30.05.2023

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 30^th Day of May 2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.458/2021

​

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1. This Appeal filed by OPs under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2020, passed in CC/134/2017 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (herein after referred as District Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint)

2. Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order and heard learned counsel for appellants.

3. The Consumer Complaint came to be raised by complainant when OPs not compensated him towards the damage of insured vehicle due to accident.  Upon service of notice OP1 failed to appear before the Commission below and thus was placed exparte.  OP2 appeared through learned counsel and contested the matter contending that they are ready to settle the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis, subject to the damage as assessed in the survey report which stands at Rs.3,93,004/-. Commission below after holding enquiry, relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 8 SCC 279 in the case between Dharmendra Goel v. Oriental Insurance Company and held OPs rendered deficiency in service for non settling the claim amount and directed OP  to pay Rs.5,13,832/- as per the policy condition with interest @ 09% from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of payment along with Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- with cost.  It is this order being assailed in this appeal by OP on the ground that the ratio adopted by the Commission below is beside the point and also the Commission below has erred in appreciating the materials placed on record especially Ex.R4 the survey report wherein the loss assessed by the authorized surveyor is to the extent of Rs.3,93,004/- on non standard basis. Further the Forum below failed to appreciate Ex.R1 to R3 the reminders letters dated 30.06.2016, 17.08.2016 and 10.09.2016 respectively to complainant/respondent herein to provide the invoice to process the claim. Also without any proper reasoning Commission below has arrived at the amount of Rs.5,13,832/- which is contrary to law and facts and is liable to be set aside.

4. It is undisputed fact that complainant/respondent had obtained Reliance Goods Carrying Vehicle Package Policy from OP1 for the period from 06.12.2015 to 05.12.2016 with IDV of Rs.7,00,000/-.  It is also not in dispute that within the policy period on 11.02.2016 the said vehicle met with an accident at nearby Shiralli place in Bhatkal Taluk.  Complainant himself in his complaint admits that he had not given any complaint to the police station regarding the accident since no one was injured due to the said accident.  Further complainant/respondent in his complaint alleges that due to total damage of the vehicle he had incurred expenses of Rs.9,22,084/- and being a beneficiary of the policy approached OPs/appellants but has not settled the claim.  It is to be noted herein that OP2/appellant no.2 was ready to settle the claim of the complainant/respondent prior to filing of the complaint before the Forum below on non-standard basis, subject to damage of assessed in the survey report which stands at Rs.3,93,004/- made by the competent loss assessor. Further to be noted herein Forum below in para-33 of the impugned order observes that complainant/respondent had not made any specific objections to the surveyor report.  Therefore, question may arise on what basis Forum below held that there was a total loss of the said vehicle and on what basis directed OPs to pay Rs.5,13,832/-.  On going through the impugned order could see that the Forum below at one breath in para-24 page 12 of the impugned order states that Ex.R4 is the details of assessment made by the surveyor and in para-28 page 13 states as Ex.R4 is the repair bill to the tune of Rs.9,22,085/-,  is contrary to facts.  Therefore, in our view, the Forum below has failed to identify the documents produced by the parties in right manner or in other words, the Forum below had conflated the documents placed by the parties. Further to be noted herein that the Forum below had assessed net salvage to the tune of Rs.47,047/- and net depreciation of Rs.1,39,120.24/-. Without support of evidence, to substantiate the said amount nor there is any reasons given by the Forum below to arrive at such amount.  It is therefore, we are of the view that there is an absence of such reasons while dispensation of justice, making an order unsustainable.  Thus in such view of the matter, in our view, it would be just and proper to remand back the matter to Commission below to decide the case in accordance with law affording opportunity to both parties.  Accordingly, proceed to allow the appeal.  Consequently set aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2020 passed in CC/134/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi with a direction to Commission below to re-admit the complaint case and issue notice to parties to the complaint to examine whether there is any total loss caused to the insured vehicle at the time of accident as stated by the complainant, since OP alleges that the vehicle is repairable and the repair charges as per the loss assessed by the Surveyor is Rs.3,43,832/-.  Further if found necessary to appoint Court Commissioner to inspect the vehicle in question and decide the case in accordance with law as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order.  The parties to be complaint are at liberty to place additional documents if any on record to assist the Commission below.

5. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to District Commission for needful.

6. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

Lady MemberJudicial MemberPresident

*GGH*