State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Divisional Manager, United ... vs Deergayu Aravind Mohire on 22 October, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/721/2013 ( Date of Filing : 03 Jun 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 02/04/2013 in Case No. CC/508/2012 of District Belgaum) 1. Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, 1568, II Floor, Seetha Smriti, Maruti Galli, Belgaum 590002 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Deergayu Aravind Mohire Age: Major, R/o. 525, Mehar, Raghunath Peth, Angol, Belgaum . 2. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. 3, North Avenue, Level 4, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 . 3. Manager, Kumar Motor Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Volkswagen, Hubli, 55/1B, Opp: APMC, Amaragol, Hubli-Dharwad Road, Hubli 580025 . 4. Star Surveyors Loss Assessors, Valuers & Investigators Rep. by S.A. Tiari, H.No. 60, Brindavan Silver Park, Devangpet Road, Hubli 23, Dharwad Dist. . ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 22 Oct 2024 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 PRESENT SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER APPEAL NO. 721/2013 Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Divisional Office, No.1568, 2nd Floor, Seetha Smriti, Maruti Galli, Belgaum 590 002.
(By Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, Advocate) ... Appellant/s V/s
1. Deergayu Aravind Mohire, Age : Major, R/o 525, MEHAR, Raghunath Peth, Angol, Belgaum.
(By Sri M. Ramakrishna, Advocate) ... Respondent/s
2. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd., 3, North Avenue, Level 4, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.
3. Manager, Kumar Motor Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Volkswagen, Hubli, 55/1B, Opp. APMC, Amaragol, Hubli-Dharwad Road, Hubli 580 025.
(By Sri Basavaprabhu Hosakeri, Advocate)
4. Star Surveyors, Loss Assessors, Valuers & Investigators, Rep. by Sri S.A. Tiwari, H.No.60, Brindavan, Silver Park, Devangpet Road, Hubli 23, Dharwad District.
ORDER SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.02.04.2013 passed in CC.No.508/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belgaum.
2. Heard the arguments of both counsels.
3. Perused the appeal memorandum and certified copy of the impugned order. The appellant had paid an amount of Rs.13,000/- towards own damage claim and declined to pay the assessed amount made by the Surveyor. The appellant had declined to pay the entire assessed amount only due to the reason that consequent repairs are not liable to be payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Aggrieved by the said, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay Rs.3,27,000/- with interest at 10% along with costs.
4. We are of the opinion that the terms and conditions of the policy are binding on both parties i.e. insured and insurer. Here we noticed that though the surveyor assessed the loss caused to the complainant had also suggested that the engine repair was done which was only due to consequential impact of the accident. Basing on the said opinion, the appellant has settled the claim to the tune of only Rs.13,000/-. The Clause 4(a) of the policy terms and conditions provides that this appellant is not responsible for any consequential loss or damage and basing on the said they declined to settle the claim. When the policy terms and conditions disclose that consequential loss or damages are not payable, the complainant is not entitled to get any such loss or damage. The District Commission failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of the policy. At the same time, the District Commission has no power to wrongly interpret the terms and conditions of the policy and directed this appellant to pay the abovesaid amount. The decline made by the appellant for non-payment of the consequential damage not amounts to any deficiency in service. As such, the Order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with Law which is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following;
ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission for disbursement of the same to the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 by obtaining proper identification.
Forward free copies to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER