ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. M. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petition no. 881 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging, inter -alia, the impugned final judgment and order dated 12.07.2012 passed in First Appeal no. 918 of 2012 by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ( 'the State Commission ').

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as stated by the respondent/complainant are that on 09.11.2008, his Skoda Car bearing Registration no. KA 03 MG 3025 met with an accident on 07.00 p m on N H 4 Road, near Thathikallu Village, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District. Due to the accident the above said vehicle was fully damaged. The Nangali police station has registered a case in Crime no. 191 of 2008 against the said vehicle. The FIR is herewith produced for kind perusal of this Hon 'ble Court. As the Skoda Car bearing Registration no. KA 03 MG 3025 was fully damaged in the accident and was got repaired by Vinayaka Cars Pvt. Ltd., authorised dealer of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Revack Building, no. 50/ 2 TC Palya Cross, Old Madras Road, Bangalore - 560 049. The respondent/complainant spent Rs.10,46,961/ - including tax towards repair.

(3.) IN their statement of objections before the District Forum the petitioner/ opposite party - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., have stated that that the claim is not maintainable. They have admitted that the insured vehicle Skoda Laura Car bearing no. KA 03 MG 3025 was insured with the petitioner under the private car package policy and that the Insured Declared Value of the said car was Rs.7,55,556/ -. As such, the liability of the opposite party/insurer cannot be beyond the Insured Declared Value so declared by the complainant and that the liability of the respondents is limited to the amount as per the assessment so made by the IRDA approved surveyor. Further, the respondent/complainant having submitted his Job Card, Estimate Detail/ pre -order dated 17.11.1998, was only an estimate towards the spares and labour and was not the actual amount spent towards the repair of the insured vehicle. The respondent/ complainant had failed to submit the bills towards repairs carried out and the amount so remitted to the repairer in respect of repair and labour charges.