D.O.F:17/04/2021
D.O.O:31/07/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.85/2021
Dated this, the 31st day of July 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Kamalaksha, aged 41 years
S/o Balakrishna
R/at Near AjanthaNivas,
Udyavara, Kunjathur,
ManjeshwaraTaluk, : Complainant
Kasaragod District
(Adv: JahanaviNayak K. P.)
And
- The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Shop No 25,26, 2nd floor, EsselWillcon Complex,
Kankanady Post, Kadri Village,
Mangalore D K, 575002
- The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Registered and Head Office,
Bajaj Allianz House,
Airport Road, Yerwada Pune,
Maharashtra : Opposite Party
(Adv: Annamma John V, for OP 1 &2)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of the vehicle KL- 14 P 2161. The said vehicle is covered with Opposite party insurance company valid till 01/06/2021. The said vehicle met with a road traffic accident on 13/09/2020 the vehicle suffered extensive damage. Badiadka Police registered the case but no injuries to any person. The complainant informed the accident to Opposite party but advised to continue with repair and seek re-imbursement. The Opposite party informedthat insurance of Rs. 14,000/-alone will be paid. The Opposite party is liable to pay the amount of damage suffered in full. Thus complainant alleges deficiency in service from Opposite party. Complainant sought following reliefs namely compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 49441/-being the spare parts bill and service bills, and cost of litigation.
2. The Opposite party filed its written version admitting insurance and accident. Insurance company appointed a surveyor. Surveyor assessed loss of Rs. 16,482/- as per terms of the policy said amount is already paid to complainant via NEFT transfer. And there is no deficiency in service and claim settled and false complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1. Ext A1 to A3 documents marked from his side Ext A1 is the insurance policy, Ext A2 is GD extract of Badiadka Police Station Ext A3 series of bills seven in number.
4. The Opposite party filed chief affidavit Ext B1 to B4 documents were marked and examined as Dw1. Ext B1 is insurance policy, Ext B2 is the surveyor report ,Ext B3 is the copy of bills, Ext B4 is the payment details of complainant.
5. Following points arised from consideration :
a) Whether complainant entitled for full amount covered by spare parts bills and service charges bills as insurance benefits as per terms and conditions of the policy.
b) Whether complainant is entitled for any compensation for deficiency in service if so for what reliefs?
6. The facts remains that the accident to the vehicle is admitted and causing of damages to the vehicle also admitted by Opposite party. But compensation suppressed to receipt of amount of Rs. 16482/- even on 22/10/2020 in complaints he states that Opposite party offered to pay only Rs. 14,000/-.
7. In evidence Dw1 has no case that Opposite party offered are not correct or so much amount is not for repair charges Opposite party has no case that bills produced are manipulated for the purpose of the case. While Pw1 in the box there is no suggestion that Ext A3 series of bills are not correct or that so much amount covered by bills are not paid by complainant. The surveyor is appointed by Opposite party, notice of inspection not given to complainant and no case of surveyor report is not supplied to complainant.
8. The settlement of a claim by insures is made as per surveyor report in respect of loss suffered by insured but such report is neither binding upon insurer no insured. Surveyors report certainly can be taken note evidence is brought on record to rebetthe contents of the surveyors report. Surveyors report cannot be considered as a sacrosanct document and if there is any contrary evidence including investigation report, surveyors report is a basic if it inspires confidence of adjudicating fourm and if such fourm does not find need to place relianceon any other material, infact and circumstances arising in the case National Insurance Company ltd VsHareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd/(2021) 3 CPR 274.
9. The surveyors report does not refer to parts or its bill amount and inspections is made even before repair. Surveyor inspected on 17/09/2020. No reasons why bill amount is not accepted. Total bill amount comes to Rs. 37,500/- as per copies of bills enclosed with copy surveyor report. When deductions are made to the extent of 20% of bill amount it comes to Rs. 30,000/-total amount paid Rs. 16482/- balance amount payable is Rs. 13512/- rounded to Rs. 13500/- by Opposite party to complainant payable with interest at 6% from date of complaint till payment. Considering the evidence on record discussed here above there is thus deficiency in service in paying amount less than amount payable. But since complainant suppressed receipt of the amount as per surveyor report, compensation is fixed to Rs. 5000(Rupees five thousand only). There is no reason to disallow the cost and is entitled for cost of Rs. 5000/-.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 13,500/- complainant payable with interest at 6% per annum from date of filing complaint still payment. The Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1 – Insurance policy
A2 – General Diary Abstract
A3 – Series of Bills
B1 – Insurance policy
B2 – Final Survey Report
B3 – Copy of bills
B4 – Payment details of complainant
Witness cross examined
PW1 – Kamalaksha
DW1 – Reshma. A.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
