Date of Complaint : 12/08/2014

                                  Date of Disposal :19/02/2015

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

  SMT. K.D. PARVATHY, MEMBER

O R D E R

1. The complaint has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service by the opponents.

2. The complainant states that he is the owner of a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-12 K-3975.  The said motor cycle was insured with the opponents and the policy number is 60240431136265000771.

3. The complainant states that above said motor cycle met with an accident on 28/10/2013 at Guddehosur and was badly damaged.  The complainant sates that at the time of the accident the policy was in force.  The complainant states that he had informed and the office of the opponents regarding the accident and the opponents had issued the claim form and also had the spot inspected by their official by name Jayachandraraj Urs.  The complainant states that all the required documents were submitted to the office of the opponents.

4. The complainant states that as per the direction of the opponents, the complainant got the motor cycle repaired at M.S. Motors, B.M. Road, Kushalnagar.  The final bill for the repair of the motor cycle was Rs.16,500/- which was paid by the complainant.  The complainant states that the officer Surveyor of the opponents had estimated the total loss of Rs.25,500/-.  The complainant states that the opponents have not paid the amount inspite of requesting them to pay.

5. The complainant states that on 03/04/2014 legal notice was sent to the opponents calling upon them to make the payment.  The notice was served to the opponents but an evasive reply was given by the opponents and have not complied the legal demand of the complainant.  The complainant states that the opponents also stated in their reply that the opponents were ready to pay Rs.7,755/- to the complainant.

6. The complainant further states that, he is not willing to receive the said amount of Rs.7,755/-from the opponents.  But the opponents are liable to pay the entire amount of Rs.16,500/-.  The complainant states that the act of the opponents are illegal, void and have caused great mental pressure and agony to the complainant and thus the act of the opponents amount to deficiency of service.

7. The opponents have stated that the independent surveyor submitted his report dated 11/02/2014 as per Annexure 9 stating that the amount payable as per the insurance policy is Rs.7,982/-and salvage value at Rs.225/-.  Opponent no.2 states that their competent authority worked out the loss at Rs.7,755/-, as per the worksheet which is Annexure 10.  The opponent no.2 states that they had asked the complainant to furnish the bank details for the payment of the compensation.  The opponents state that they have acted with all expediency to settle the claim of the complainant and hence, there is no deficiency of service. 

8. The following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant has shown the deficiency of service by the opponents?

2. To what order the parties are entitled?

9. Findings on the above points are as follows;

            Point No.1 Negative

            Point No.2 As per order

R E A S O N S

10. Point No.1:- The admitted facts are that the complainant had insured his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 12 K 3975 with opponent vide policy No.6024043113626000771 for the period of 25/05/2013 to 24/05/2014 and policy was in force on the date of the accident.  The opponents states that the independent Surveyor had submitted his report dated 11/02/2014 as per annexure 9 stating that the amount payable as per the insurance policy is Rs.7,982/-and salvage value at Rs.225/-.  The opponent no.2 further states that the competent authority worked out the loss at Rs.7,755/- as per the worksheet which is Annesure-10.  The opponents have submitted in their written argument that opponent no.2 had called upon the complainant to furnish the bank details for payment of the compensation vide annexure-11.

11. The complainant has produced documents which shows the estimation of Rs.16,500/- done by the independent surveyor appointed by the opponents but the complainant has not produced any documents on record to prove that, the complainant had made a payment of Rs.16,500/- to the showroom M.s. Motors.

12. The complainant has produced other documents which clearly state that the said motor cycle had met with an accident and the spares and labour invoice also shows how much damage has been caused to the vehicle in question but the complainant has not produced any proof for having made payment of Rs.16,500/- to the showroom as stated by the complainant in his complaint.  The complainant has not produced any receipt or bank statement to prove that the amount was paid by him.

13. Further the opponents are not liable to pay the estimated cost for repair.  Only after deducting depreciation they have to make the eligible amount.  Accordingly the opponents having accepted the Surveyor report and offered to pay the eligible amount of Rs.7,982/- towards the repair charges.  The complainant refused it.  Hence there is no deficiency of service. 

14. In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opponents.  Accordingly the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs sought for in the complaint, as such the point no.1 is answered in negative. 

15. Point No.2:- In view of the findings on point No.1 above we pass the following ;

O R D E R

1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this  19^th day of February 2015)