STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/881/2014 M/s.Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd PRESENT ADDRESS - PPC Plot No.EL-94, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Mahape, New Mumbai-

400 710. Rep. by Piyush Shankar, Legal Manager . ,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus B.Ashok PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Bhakthe Gowda, Aged about 27 years, No.82, Banaghatta Village, Pandavapura Taluk, Hirimarili Post, Mandya District . ,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 16/01/2025

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF JANUARY 2025 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 881/2014

M/s Univeral Sompo General

ORDER

1. The appellants/Opposite Party No.3 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the

Order dt.24.03.2014 passed in CC.No.1442/2013 on the file of 3^rd Additional District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that he purchased MOTCAB from Opposite Party No.1 by taking financial assistance from the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.3 is the insurance company with whom the said vehicle was insured. The said vehicle met with an accident on 23.02.2013 and immediately it was brought to the notice to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 and it was sent to the garage of Opposite Party No.1. The invoice was given for Rs.2,32,774/- . However, the Opposite Party No.3 paid only a sum of Rs.1,44,772/- to the Opposite Party No.1 relating to the vehicle. The complainant paid the balance amount and took delivery of the vehicle after repairs. Due to the refusal of the entire amount from Opposite Party No.3, loss has been caused to the complainant, hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 have appeared and filed version. The Opposite Party No.1 contended that there is no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.1. Further contended that when the vehicle was given for repairs, the Opposite Party No.1 has prepared necessary invoice and given to the complainant and only after he gave is consent to repair it, the Opposite Party No.1 can repair the same. The Opposite Party No.2 contended that he is only the financier to purchase the vehicle and he is not concerned with any loss caused to the vehicle in any accident. The Opposite Party No.3 contended that it has appointed IRDA Licensed Surveyor to conduct the survey of the vehicle and to file his report. The surveyor conducted the detailed examination and prepared the report and submitted the same. Based on it, the Opposite Party No.3 has assessed the value of the damage of the vehicle in terms of policy and paid Rs.1,44,772/-. Further contended that the surveyor has allowed Rs.67,909/- towards depreciation and Rs.8,752/- towards salvage. The said depreciation is allowed as per Sec.1 of the policy. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/Opposite Party No.3 is in appeal. Heard the arguments of both parties.

5. Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission and materials on record. We noticed that it is not in dispute that the respondent had purchased the MOTOCAB by taking financial assistan