State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager Tata Aig General Insurance ... vs G. Srikanth Reddy on 30 June, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.226 OF 2015
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.175/2013, DISTRICT cONSUMER
COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY
Between:
The Manager Tata
Aig General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Block-A,
My Home Tycoon, Kundan Bagh,
Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.
And
Appellant/Opposite Party
G.Srikanth Reddy, s/o.Narsimha
Reddy,
Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.6-96, Reddy Colony,
Chevella Village and Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District.
Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the
Appellant/Opp.Party: M/s. N. Mohan Krishna
Counsel for the
Respondent/Complainant: M/s. A.Ushi Reddy
QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE
&&
PRESIDENT,
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA
RAMANATHAN..LADY MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TrWENTY Two w****** Order
1. This is an appeal filed U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986against the order dated 15.05.2015 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad made in CC.No.175/2013. The Appellant is the Opposite Party and the Respondent is the Complainant in CC.No.175/2013.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are:
The Complainant met with an accident on 23.02.2013 and the damage was extensive. The Opposite Party was intimated regarding the accident and the police at Chevella conducted 2 panchanama and recorded the damage to the vehicle. Thereaft.
iter, the vehicle was shifted to the Volks Wagon service centre but only minor damages were admitted to by the Opposite Party and the Complainant was forced to repair the vehicle at different service centres due to paucity of funds. He incurred a total expenditure of Rs.1,74,059/-, He sent all the bills along with the panchanama to the Opposite Party in support of his claim but the Opposite Party did not accede the claim vide their reply dated 14.05.2013.
4. The Complainant's Car sustained another accident on l6.05.2013 and the panchanama of the said incident was conducted on 17.05.2013 vide GD.No.286 by Chevella Police Station. It is further submitted that while shifting the vehicle to the repair shop at Secunderabad, some miscreanmts damaged the car further and also took some valuables placed in the car. The claims with the second accident was submitted on 22.05.2013. However, the Opposite Party refused to inspect the damages to the car or approve the claim. The present complaint is filed for the deficiency in service and delay in settlement of the claim.
5. The Opposite Parties filed their written version after the accident stating that on 23.02.2013 -
Mr.Praveen conducted a preliminary enquiry and thereafter deputed the surveyor.
Mr.K.Shyam Kishore They have further stated that when the wished to surveyor re-inspect the vehicle, the Complainant did not cooperate. The Complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.79,242/- vide bill dated 15.03.2013 which is as per the repairs carried out by his own choice. The surveyor did not find the repairs relevant to the description and cause of accident as stated by the Complainant. The second accident as per the complaint occurred on 16.05.2013 and the panchanama was conducted after the vehicle was removed from the spot of the accident.
receiving the intimation, the surveyor Immediately on
-
Sri K.Shyam Kishore was entrusted to assess the loss but in this case also the refused to show the repaired vehicle for Complainant the inspection, after getting the vehicle repaired on tis own volition. The Opposite Party addressed several letters to the Complainant asking him to produce the vehicle for re-inspection, but till date there has been 3 no response from the Complainant. Since the matter is sub-judice, repudiation letter was not sent to the Complainant. With these submissions, they claim that there has been no deficiency in service and pray dismissal of the complaint.
6. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.Al to A24 marked on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Party filed. Ex.B1 to B9 are ma. ked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
7. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, partly allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,93,558/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 17.05.2013 till the date of realization. The the Opposite Party is further directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to Complainant. Time for compliance: 30 days.
the
8. Aggrieved by the above said order of the District Forum, that the Appellant/Opposite Party filed this appeal contending Forum below had failed to consider the following The lower Forum erred in not appreciating the facts of the case, evidence on record and provision of law applicable to the case.
The Forum below erred in allowing the complaint of the Respondent without considering the material evidence.
9. point that arises for consideration is whether the The impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to ve set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what reliei?
10. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
11. The Respondent/Complainant is claiming the total sum of Rs.2,12,867/- as damages to his vehicle that were caused by accidents on 23.02.2013,16.05.2013 and 17.05.2013. The fact that the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party is not in dispute and the policy was valid from 19.05.2012 to 18.05.2013. We have A perused the impugned order and the material evidence following points emerged íor consideration:placed on record and the As per policy conditions Ex.A1 we refer clause TA-01 Depreciation Re-imbursement
-Vehicle is not more than 3 years old from the date purchase or date of of start of registration, whichever is earlier at the period of insurance.
There are not more than 2 claims insurance. during the period of
-Vehicle is repaired at any of our Authorized Garage.
12. As per the Certificate of Insurance and vide Ex.A1, the Policy Schedule filed vehicle was had covered manufactured in the year 201l and around 62077 Kms at The the time of the first Respondent/Complainant has accident.
dated 23.02.2013 filed the tax invoice
for a sum of vide Ex.A5
bills vide Ex.A6
to
Rs.79,243/- and has filed further A10 for other Rs.1,75,358/-. repairs amounting to Ex.A16 is the main centre and the correspondence between the service surveyor but the assessment has not been given by the surveyor provided by the clearly stated Respondent/Complainant.
service centre has The
that they are
approval of the Opposite Party to waiting for the
start the work. This Exhibit is
dated 24.05.2013.
13. The second accident
occurred on
16.05.2013 and the
Respondent/Complainant is seeking a sum of Ex.A19-repair order dated 22.05.2013. Once Rs.20,608/- vide assessment is filed. again no surveyor Only Ex.A23 an email 29.05.2013 is filed wherein the correspondence dated surveyor Sri K.Shyam Kishore has communicated with the service centre.
We have documentary evidence filed by the Opposite perused the Party. The vehicle, was surveyed by the Appellant/Opposite Party Mr.Praveen Kumar cn 26.02.2013 for damages in the accident that occurred on 23.02.2013. The IRDA surveyor Mr.Shyam Kishore was also appointed. The assessment for repairs is filed vide Ex.B5 for a total sum of Rs.27.988.33 ps and date of loss is 23.02.2013.
14. The and repaired the Respondent/Complainant was not satisfied with this vehicle refusing to produce the vehicle for re-
inspection. The Appellant/Opposite Party has continuously corresponded with the Respondent/Complainant stating that all the damages to the vehicle are not correlated with the cause of accident and the claim filed cannot be kept open indefinitely and that the Respondent/Complainant is requested to produce the vehicle along with salvage for re-inspection. There is apparently a great difference in the bills submitted by the Respondent/Complainant and the assessment provided by the surveyor.
15. The impugned order relied on the bills produced by the Respondent/Complainant and the estimation provided by the various service centres and allowed the claim for a sum of Rs.1,78,358/- without considering the assessment provided by the surveyor or the clauses incorporated in the pelicy.
16. The Appellant/Opposite Party filed Ex.B5 for a total sum of Rs.27,988/- for the date of loss being 23.02.2013. The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.8,03,000/-. and the Respondent/Complainant has produced on record a main estimate preferred by authorized service centre of Volks Wagon for Rs.79,242/- vide Ex.A5. This complies with the clause enunciated in the policy which has been highlighted vide Ex.A1.
17 Insofar as the second accident is concerned, the claim has been raised within a few months and the Respondent/Complainant has provided an estimate of Rs.20,608/- vide Ex.A19 from an authorized service centre of Volks Wagon. The Appellant/Opposite Party has assessed this damage for only Rs.5,494.41 ps vide Ex.B6.
18. The main ground urged by the Appellant/Opposite Party is that the Respondent/Complainant did not allow the surveyor to re- inspect the vehicle although they have admitted to the damages caused to the vehicle on two occasions. In fact, the Appellant/Opposite Party has filed photographs vide Ex.B7 & B8 6 corresponding to Ex.A24 and the record discloscs that they seek to reduce the amount as demanded by the Respondent/Complainant.
19. A surveyor's report cannot be treated as the final word. A Survey report must also consider the estimate provided by the authorized service centre, especially in cases of ambiguity. Processing the claim based on the findings of a surveyor and then holding that there is no deficiency in service is not justilied.
i th Surveyor's assessment is not in line with the terms of the contract, or all the material facts are not considered, it is likely to be set aside. In other words if there is any doubt, the Insurance Company cannot solely rely on his opinion/assessment to settle the claim.
The Respondent/Complainant
has submitted bills for
Rs.1,75,000/-, we are inclined to consider repairs submitted vide Ex.A6 to A10. The bills filed vide Ex.A6 to A10 are dated 28.03.2013 and arise from the accident that occurred on 26.02.2013. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have not raised any objection to the repairs effected or the bills submitted. Since the dates of the bills conform to the date of accident, we have considered these along with the repair invoices issued by Volks Wagon vide Ex.A5 & A19. With the above detailed discussion, we concur with the findings of the Forum below, which warrants no interference whatsoever.
20. In the result, the appeal is disposed of and only the quantum of interest awarded in the impugned order is modified. The Insurance Company i.e., Appellant/Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,93,558/- to the Complainant along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. Further costs of Rs.5,000/- are awarded.