ORAL ORDER:

PER: MT JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA:PRESIDENT

This Appeal is filed U/S 4L of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Opposite Party (in shott'the OP') challenging the Order dated 04.03.202L passed in Consumer Complaint No.15/2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kalaburgi (in short ' District Commission').

The Appellant was the OP and the Respondent was the Complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

The brief facts of the case are tha! the Complainant, is the owner of Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-O1-D-3774, which was insured with OP by paying annual premium of Rs.23,518/- under policy bearing No,3362/101012856/000/00 covering the risk for the period from 27.05.2015 and 26.05.2016' The Insured Declared Value (in short IDV) of the vehicle is Rs.7,50,000/-.

3(a). On 25.05.2015, the Complainant was travelling from Shahabad to Kalaburgi, near Shetty College, a dog suddenly crossed the road. In order to avoid hitting the dog, the driver of the vehicle Mr Mohammad Abidpasha swerved the car towards the left side of the road. In the process, he lost control over the vehicle, as a result of which, the vehicle met with an accident and the car was completely damaged. However, there was no loss of life or injury to the driver or the occupants'

After the accident, the incident was reported to University Police Station, Kalaburgi, where a case was registered in Crime No.165/2016 and FIR was reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The Complainant also informed the OP about the accident. Thereafter, the Vehicle was towed to Toyota Karuna Motors, Kalagburgi where it was repaired at a cost of Rs'9,35,050/-' The Surveyor appointed by the OP has inspected the vehicle and collected the necessary documents.

4(a). The Surveyor has suggested for settlement of claim on basis of total loss. Since IDV of the vehicle is lesser than the estimated repair costs of the vehicle, the Complainant requested the OP to settle the claim for the IDV amount. Though the OP initially assured the settlement, the claim was not settled and postponed the same on one or the other reason. Alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commisslon.

Before the District Commission, the OP has opposed the Complaint by filing the version, admitting that the Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle, that the policy was in force at the time of accident and the vehicle was completely damaged. It was contended that letters were addressed to the Complainant seeking submission of documents required to process the claim' Since no documents were submitted, claim was treated as 'No Claim' and thereby repudiated' OP contended that there is deficiency on the part of the Complainant in not furnishing the documents and therefore, OP is not liable to pay any compensation.

Before the District Commission, the Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as PW-1 and 13 documents came to be marked as Ex-P1 to P13. On behalf of OP, The Assistant Manager of OP filed his affidavit as RW-1 and one witness also filed his affidavit evidence as RW2 and Ex-R1 to R6 marked,

The District Commission after hearing the arguments of both the parties, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs'7,35,000/- with interest at 9o/o p.a. and also directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards lltigation costs. Aggrieved by the same, OP has preferred this ApPeal.

We have heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides,

The Point that arises for our consideration is:-

Whether Order of the District Commission in directing the OP to pay Rs.7,35,OOO/- is perverse, illegal and calls for interference?:

REASONS:

It is conten