Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1859/2011

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Roshan M. - Opp.Party(s)

H.S. Lingaraj

11 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1859/2011

 

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. B.D. Road, Chitradurga having its Regional Office at East Wing 5th Floor, Centenary Building M.G. Road, Bangalore by its Deputy Manager (Claims)       (By Sri. H.S. Lingaraj) V/s	….Appellant
1.  Roshan M.      W/o. Meer Tanveer      R/o. Chelugudda, Near Society      Chitradurga      2.  M/s. Durga Motors      by its Managing Partner M.M. Rajesh      Authorised Tata Motors Service Station      Near Rural Police Station, N.H. 13      Chitradurga	..…Respondents

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The OP in C.C.No.75/2010 preferred this appeal against order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chitradurga.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of truck bearing Registration No. KA-16/A-6655 which was insured with OP No.1vide policy bearing No.1406172334201308 which was valid from 05.10.2007 to 04.10.2008.  Such being the case on 08.06.2008 the vehicle met with an accident near Charmadi Ghat while returning from Mangalore.  Immediately police registered case under Crime No.41/2008 and C.C.No. 531/2008 and the fact was also reported to OP Nos. 1 and 2, for which OPs also appointed Mr.Gopal Krishna, surveyor for inspection.  Accordingly, on 11.06.2008 said surveyor inspected the vehicle, prepared preliminary report, but, after receipt of the preliminary survey report this OP appointed another surveyor Mr.M.C.Himath Kedar for assessment of loss suffered by complainant, for which the said surveyor had insisted the complainant for dismantlement of the vehicle for the purpose of assessment, but, the complainant not co-operated the said dismantlement.  Hence, basing non-cooperation from the complainant, OP repudiated the claim against which the complainant preferred complaint before District Commission. 
3. After trial District Commission allowed the complaint directing OP to pay an amount of Rs.10,29,753/- towards damage to the vehicle and Rs.32,000/- towards mental agony against which the appellant is before this commission.
4. Heard from appellant.
5. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal we noticed that it is admitted fact that complainant has obtained comprehensive insurance policy towards his vehicle (truck bearing No. KA-16-A-6655) which was valid from 05.10.2007 to 04.10.2008.  It is also admitted fact that the vehicle met with an accident near Charmadi Ghat while returning from Mangalore and the OPs have appointed IRDA surveyor Mr.Gopal Krishna to inspect the vehicle and assess the damage caused to the vehicle.  Accordingly, on 11.06.2008 the said surveyor submitted his preliminary survey report.  Subsequently, OP appointed another surveyor for assessment of loss towards vehicle which was kept at service station, Chitradurga for repair and he insisted for dismantlement of the vehicle for the purpose of assessment of loss.  The OP further took contention that the complainant had not co-operated dismantlement of the vehicle and the surveyor was unable to assess loss.  Hence, basing on the non-assessment they have repudiated the claim as ‘no claim’ against which complainant preferred complaint.  The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint holding that the photographs produced by complainant are sufficient to hold that the complainant has incurred huge amount towards repair of the vehicle and considering the IDV value had directed OP to pay amount of Rs.10,29,753/-.
6. The repudiation made by OP basing on the report submitted by said surveyor is not justifiable as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  We noticed here that one Gopal Krishna, surveyor has taken photographs of the vehicle on the spot to notice the damages caused to the vehicle due to accident.  The said surveyor has not assessed/estimated the cost for repair of the vehicle.  Infact, even the second surveyor has also not assessed damage for the purpose of settlement of the claim.  The dismantlement sought by surveyor is not in accordance with law.  The dismantlement of vehicle after repair does not require for assessment of loss/damage suffered by vehicle.  The surveyor could have assessed loss basing on the estimation issued by OP No.3 who is the repairer.  Instead of that he insisted for dismantlement of the entire vehicle and the OP has repudiated the claim basing report given by said subsequent surveyor is not in accordance with law.  It is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of OP in repudiating genuine claim of the complainant.  The District Commission has directed the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 10,29,753/- basing on the IDV value and bills produced by complainant.  We are of the opinion that the bills cannot be paid as it is because it requires depreciation on the spare parts, but, the surveyor failed to assess the said loss by providing depreciation on the spare parts as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence, it is just and proper to award the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis.  Here we noticed that District Commission directed OP to pay entire amount of Rs.10,29,753/- which was estimated by repairer/OP No.3.  Hence, it is just and proper to award 75% of the said award amount to be payable to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation.  As such the award passed by the District Commission is modified and appellant/OP is directed to pay 75% of the award amount towards own damage claim along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation and further directed to pay litigation costs of Rs.25,000/-. 
7. The OPs are directed to comply the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the order dated 22.03.2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No.75/2010 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chitradurga.
8. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for disbursement to the complainant.        

 

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*