M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The complainant, not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, has filed this appeal, for enhancement of the compensation.
(2.) The appellant, who is the owner of a Fiat Uno Disel Car, bearing Registration No.TN-45-V 6669, had insured the said vehicle, with the opposite party, comprehensively for the period 25.10.00 24.10.01. On 28.11.00, when the complainant was driving vehicle, in order to save a motor cyclist, turned the vehicle, resulting accident, sustaining damage to the vehicle, for which report was given to the opposite party, and the vehicle was handed over to TVS engineers for repairs, who had collected a sum of Rs.74,950/-. When the claim was made, based upon policy, the opposite party sent a voucher, only for a sum of Rs.2143/-, as if that claim alone is admissible, thereby they have committed deficiency, in not paying the entire amount, despite notice. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the case, for recovery of a sum of Rs.74,950/-, in addition to a sum of Rs.10000/-, as damages for the mental agony.
(3.) The opposite party/ respondent, denying the accident, admitting the comprehensive policy issued by them, would contend further, that originally the complainant submitted an estimate, obtained from M/s. TVS Iyengar and sons, for Rs.18500/- alone and lodged a claim, that the surveyor appointed by them, had assessed the damage of the vehicle at Rs.2,143/-, on which basis a request was sent to sign the voucher, which was refused by the complainant, which should go to show that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in responding the claim of the complainant, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying further allegations also.;