THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 2319/2011
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
I Floor, SLV Towers, Parvathinagar,
Bellary, by its branch Manager,
Herein represented by East Wing,
5th Floor, Centenary Building,
M.G.Road, Bangalore
By its Deputy Manager (Claims)
….Appellant/s.
(By Sri/Smt. H.SLingaraju, Adv.,)
-Versus-
K.M.Naveenkumar, A/a 39 years,
S/o K.Mohanram, (Owner of
Ashoka Bus NO.KA-34-A-2851),
Plot No.15, Pullaiah Layout,
S.N.Pet, 2nd Cross, Bellary.
(By Sri/Smt. Raghavendra R.Desai, Adv.,)
……….. Respondent/s
: ORDERS:
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – LADY MEMBER
The O.P. preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated:21/06/2011 passed by Bellary District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.47/2011.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing No.KA-34-A-2851 and he has insured the said vehicle under the comprehensive policy with the respondent vide policy No.1412402340000101, which was valid from 03.02.2010 to 02.02.2011. On 05.09.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident about 4.00 a.m. on NH-4, in front of N.R.Oil Mill, Tumkur. The Kyatsandra Police have registered the case under Crime No.241/2010. In the said accident the complainant’s vehicle was damaged and this was informed to the respondent and the respondent sent the company’s surveyor by name Sri.Shivashankar who inspected the said vehicle and submitted his report and the complainant got his vehicle repaired and sent all the concerned documents to the respondent with his claim. Thereafter the respondent assured that he will settle the claim immediately after approval, but did not settle the claim for the reasons best known to him. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the respondent on 07.03.2011. Due to negligence on the part of the respondent, the complainant was unable to pay the installment amounts as well as interest to the Financier Bank. The complainant with great difficulty by availing loan from relatives and friends carried out repairs of the vehicle by paying interest and unnecessarily the complainant is put to financial crises due to the negligent act of the respondent. The respondent is liable to pay the bill amount of Rs.2,50,500/-. Hence, the complainant.
3. After issuance of notice by the District Commission, appellant/Opposite Party appeared and filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts and it has to be dismissed. All the allegations made in the complaint except which are expressly admitted are denied. The complainant has insured his bus bearing registration No.KA-34/A-2851 with the respondent insurance company is admitted and it is subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein and also inconformity with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1989. The Respondent has neither honoured nor rejected the claim of the complainant and has requested the complainant to furnish the documents i.e. charge sheet, DL Extract, Repair bills, bills payment receipts, cancelled cheque, pass book, address and ID proof, through letter dated:05.01.2011, 13.01.2010 and surveyor has also sent a letter dated:29.10.2010 requesting the complainant to furnish the cash receipt for the repair bill along with other documents which are mandatory to settle the claim. The said documents are not furnished in time by the complainant, but he has got issued the legal notice alleging non-settlement of claim from the respondent’s end threatening to approach the consumer Forum for recovery of the amount.
3(a) The Opposite Party further contended that on the intimation given by the complainant, the respondent had deputed Mr.Shankrappa K.G. Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Bangalore to conduct the survey who conducted the survey and has given detailed report to the respondent on 25.11.2010 assessing the net loss at Rs.1,68,515/- and hence there is no delay or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in attending the claim of the complainant and has discharged its duties promptly and hence the complainant has no cause of action to file the above complaint against the respondent and same has to be dismissed.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part by directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,45,922/- towards damages caused to the vehicle with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization along with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. We have heard the arguments from appellant. Respondent not addressed his arguments in spite of several opportunities provided to him.
7. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the respondent has insured his vehicle under comprehensive policy from 03.02.2010 to 02.02.2011 with the appellant/company. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 05.09.2010 on N.H.-4 Road in front of N.R. Oil Mill, Tumkur.
8. The dispute is only that after filing of the the claim and submitting necessary documents, the appellant/company has not settled the claim of the respondent.
9. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the appellant/company has contended in his objection that the appellant has neither honoured nor rejected the claim of respondent and requested the respondent to furnish the necessary documents to settle the claim. However, the respondent has not furnished the required documents in time. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, it is evident that the respondent has already submitted the required documents to the appellant/company on 21.09.2010 which was marked in lower court before the letter issued by the surveyor. It is also evident that the respondent has produced the bills towards repair of the vehicle before the lower court which amounts to Rs.2,45,922/- and the surveyor was appointed by the appellant/company had submitted a detailed report on 25.11.2010 assessing the loss of Rs.1,68,595/-. We agree surveyors are professionals who assess the loss or damage and serve as a link between the insurer and the insured. However, the insurance not bound by the loss amount assessed by the surveyor. The insurer has the right to pay or settle any claim at any amount different amount from the amount assessed by the surveyor. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,68,550/-. However, the respondent has paid Rs.2,45,922/- towards the repair of the vehicle and he has produced all the bills towards repair of the vheicle. Moreover, even after issuing legal notice, the appellant has not taken any steps to settle the claim of the respondent or replied it, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/company. Hence, in our opinion the order passed by the District commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:21.06.2011 passed by Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.47/2011 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
