BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :: KADAPA DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Friday, 07th March 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 13/ 2013
K. Ravi Kumar, S/o K. Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu,
aged 25 years, R/o D.No. 23/482, K.K. Street,
Proddatur town, Kadapa Dist. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Manager, (Motor Claim),
M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
D.No. 7-1-621/28 (16-3RT), Near Andhra Bank,
Street No. 3, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 038.
2. The Branch Manager,
M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., 8/325-B,
Durga Auto Spear Parts, Upstairs, Alamspeta,
Kadapa City and District. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 4-3-2014 in the presence of Sri T. Mohana Krishna, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle car bearing No. AP 07 P : 7937 got the same being registered with the respondents company vide policy bearing No. VPC03A3176000100 by paying net premium amount of Rs. 1,370/-. The policy is valid from 15-11-2011 to 14-11-2012.
3. It is submitted that, unfortunately on 24-8-2012 the said vehicle caught fire with resulted in its total loss. After intimation of the incident, two surveyors came from inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss of Rs. 1,20,697/-. Since the policy was in force at the time of the incident, covering the risk of the vehicle and since the complainant paid the net premium amount of Rs. 1,370/- with the respondents company being indemnifier are bound to make good the loss suffered to the complainant’s vehicle under the contract of indemnity. But the respondents company addressed a letter dt. 26-10-2012 to the complainant rejected the claim, of the complainant without any just reason. The respondents company has no right to deny the complainant’s genuine claim. Rejecting the genuine claim of the complainant would certainly amount to deficiency of service for which he suffered a lot of mental agony besides suffering from financial loss.
4. The cause of action for this complaint arose on 24-8-2012 in Kadapa town when the complainant got the owner of the vehicle got the same being registered with the respondents company vide policy bearing No. VPC03A3176000100 by paying net premium amount of Rs. 1,370/- and the policy is valid from 15-11-2011 to 14-11-2012 and when the 24-8-2012 the said vehicle caught fire when the complainant intimate4d about the fire of the vehicle to the respondents when the vehicle was met with an fire resulting its total loss, when the respondents company repudiated the claim of the complainant on erroneous and untenable grounds, on 13-12-2012 when the complainant set a legal notice which was duly served upon the respondent but failed to comply with the same and in Kadapa where the incident of total loss to the vehicle was occurred within the justification of this Hon’ble Forum. I.P.O of Rs. 200/- is enclosed herewith.
5. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to pass an order in favour of the complainant against the respondents (a) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of vehicle with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim till realization, (b) to pay a sum of rs. 35,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service rendered by the respondent, (c) to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of this complaint and (d) to grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deeds fit and proper in the interest of justice.
6. The respondents field Vakalath. The averments is hereby denied, save those that are specifically admitted hereunder. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine. The complaint is not maintainable before Hon’ble forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain instant matter as the policy was taken from Kurnool branch office and the claim was made with Chennai office of the opposite party and therefore this complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble forum. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., VI (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) that expression “branch office in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen therefore, since there is no cause of action arose in the territorial limits of Kadapa and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the same is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.
7. The complainant had availed motor insurance policy bearing No. VPC0383176000100 from answering opposite party for the period of one year i.e. from 15-11-2011 to 14-11-2012 in respect of Tata Indica Vehicle bearing No. AP 07 P : 7937. The answering opposite party had provided cover subject to specific terms and conditions as stipulated in the policy, which governs the instant claim. A cop of policy and its terms are marked as Ex. B1.
8. The complainant had lodged a claim stating that the complainant’s vehicle suddenly caught fire at engine room due to electrical short circuit while the vehicle was parked at Nehru Road on 24-8-2012. As the complainant stated that the fire spread due to electrical short circuit and the fire spread to entire engine room and burnt the accessories. The cop of claim form is marked as Ex. B2.
9. The vehicle was fitted electrical accessories like tape recorders of TAKAJ 3131 was fitted and further the complainant had also fitted speakers of 150 watts, head lamps bulbs of bosch company 90/100 watts were fitted as the same has been admitted by the complainant himself vide letter dt. 2-9-2012. It is submitted that the short circuit was cause due to the fitment of the electrical accessories by the complainant and fitment of such electrical accessories amounts to fitment of material alteration in the vehicle for which the complainant did not pay any additional premium and therefore the claim of the complainant is inadmissible under the policy terms. It is further submitted that the policy issued to the complainant did not provide any cover for electrical breakdown as the said risk is excluded from the policy coverage issued to the complainant.
10. The complainant vehicle caught fire due to fitment of electrical accessories for which no extra premium was paid by the complainant as such fitment resulted in electrical breakdown and fire accident. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was denied as there was material alternation in the vehicle which was not informed to the opposite party, no extra premium was paid to the opposite party in this regard. The policy was issued to the complainant expressly excludes any liability arising out of the electrical breakdown. The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of consequential loss, deprecation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failure or breakages.
11. The complainant ought to have declared about the fitment of the electrical accessories like tape recorders of TAKAJ3131 was fitted and further the complainant had also fitted speakers of 150 watts, head lamps bulbs of bosch company 90/100 watts and should have paid extra premium for their coverage under IMT 24 @ 4% of basic own damage premium, however the complainant neither declared the same nor paid any extra premium for the coverage and therefore, the claim of the complainant is anadmissible and untenable for want of payment of premium. The complainant’s claim was referred to IRDA licensed surveyor Mr. NVK Prasad holding IRDA License No. SLA/44303 valid upto 2-11-2013 is reproduced below for the kind reference of the Hon’ble Forum.
TECHNICAL REPORT:-
Reasons of loss:- IV got fired when it was parked due to short circuit.
Technical opinion:- IV is having extra fitments of audio system, speakers and headlight bulbs with high watts i.e. 90/100. The alteration in wing to fix the extra fitment leads to a short circuit in wiring and vehicle got fired. The copy of technical opinion of NVK Prasad is marked as Ex. B4.
12. The Insurance Surveyor Mr. Venkatarama Raju for assessing loss and the statutory surveyor under section 64 UM of Insurance Act, 1938 gave a detailed report stating that the liability of the opposite party shall be Rs. 1,20,969/- on repair basis and therefore the complainant’s claim for total loss basis for Rs. 1,50,000/- is baseless and untenable. Therefore, claim in respect to total loss by the complainant is inadmissible and untenable as the complainant has violated the policy condition by not payment additional premium upon fitment of electric accessories and further loss due to electrical break down is not covered under the policy. The surveyor report along with the photos of the vehicle as taken after fire accident is marked as Ex. 5.
13. The Hon’ble National Commission has held in New India Assurance Co. Vs. Sehrawat India (P) Ltd., (III (2009) CPJ 4 (NC) was held in para -11 that the report of the surveyor has to be given due importance in arriving at the conclusion about the net loss suffered. It is submitted that the complainant herein never produced any evidence contrary to the conclusion arrived by the statutory surveyor. The relevant excerpt is reproduced below.
“it is settled law that report of statutory has to be given due importance in arriving at the conclusion about the net loss suffered by the consumer unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary”.
14. The Hon’ble National Commission in Nanad Kishore Jaiswal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (III (2009) CPJ 194 (NC) was held in para – 7 that surveyor’s report is a valuable document and it should be given due credence unless there are adequate reasons to discard the same. The relevant excerpt is produced below.
“ in a catena of judgment by the National Commission and the Apex court, it has been held that surveyor’s report is a valuable document and it should be given due credence unless there are adequate reasons to discard the same. In this connection we would like to cite an extract of the latest judgment of Natioinal Commission which was pronounced on 15-12-2008 in RP No. 2212 of 2004 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. A. Sreedhar Reddy, Wherein it has been observed as under.
As per settled law the report of the surveyor is an important document which cannot be brushed aside and in this case nothing has been shows to us to take the figure of loss other than the one arrive at by the surveyor”.
15. It is submitted that the Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. New Good Luck Retarding Works (III (2009) CPJ 262 (NC) para -5 that report of the surveyor is an important document and the same cannot be brushed aside easily without any valid justification or any report contrary. The relevant excerpt is reproduced below.
“there is no dispute as severally held by this commission and by the Hon’ble Supreme court that the report of the surveyor is an important document, which cannot be brushed aside easily without nay valid justification or any report to the contrary”.
16. It is submitted that the complainant without establishing any just cause has come before this forum with unclean hands and with the sole intention of gaining unlawfully from these answering opposite parties. A copy of the claim denial letter dt. 26-10-2012 along with RPAD receipt is marked as Ex. B6.
17. Therefore, this instant interim application filed by the complainant for depositing the claim amount is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further submitted that there is no negligence in service provided by these opposite parties. Therefore, based on the above narrated facts this complaint is liable to be dismissed as the same is untenable for non-payment of premium to cover electrical accessories.
18. In regard to the averments contained in para 1 are denied vehemently and the complainant is put to strict proof. It is submitted that the complainant had availed Motor Insurance Policy bearing number VPC 0383176000100 from this answering opposite party for the period of one year i.e. from 15-11-2011 to 14-11-2012 in respect of Tata Indica vehicle bearing AP 07 P : 7937. The answering opposite party had provided cover subject to specific terms and conditions as stipulated in the policy, which governs the instant claim.
19. Averments in para – 2 are denied vehemently and the complainant is put to strict proof. It is submitted that the complainant vehicle caught fire due to fitment of electrical accessories for which no extra premium was paid by the complainant as such fitment resulted in electrical breakdown and fire accident. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was denied as there was material alteration in the vehicle which was not informed to the opposite party, no extra premium was paid to the opposite party in this regard. It is submitted that the policy issued to the complainant expressly excludes any liability arising out of the electrical breakdown.
20. Para – 3 & 4 are denied vehemently and the complainant is put to strict proof. The comp0lainant ought to have declared about the fitment of the electrical accessories like tape recorders of TAKAJ 3131 was fitted and further the complainant had also fitted speakers of 150 watts, head lamps bulbs of bosch company 90/100 watts and should have paid extra premium for coverage under IMT 24 @ 4% of basic own damage premium, however the complainant neither declared the same nor paid any extra premium for the coverage and therefore, the claim of the complainant is inadmissible and untenable for want of payment of premium.
21. In regard to the averments contained in other para – 5 the same are denied vehemently and the complainant is put to strict proof. Therefore, claim in respect of total loss by the complainant is inadmissible and untenable as the complainant has violated the policy conditions by not payment additional premium upon fitment of electric accessories and further loss due to electrical break down is not covered under the policy. The above circumstances prayed that the Hon’b le forum may be kindly dismissed the complaint with costs and the plea of mental agony and hardship and the claim for compensation are all exaggerated and unsustainable.
22. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of there Respondents?
- To what relief?
23. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A6 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B6 were marked.
24. Point Nos. 1 & 2. As per complaint the complainant is having vehicle bearing No. AP 07 P : 7937 which was registered with the respondents company vide policy No. VPC0A3176000100 i.e. Ex. A1. The policy is valid from 15-11-2011 to 14-11-2012. The complainant paid Rs. 1,370/- towards premium as per complaint the complainant’s vehicle caught fire on 24-82-2012. Ex. A2 is the photos of the accident. There is no police report on the fire accident. The complainant did not gave nay police complaint on the accident of his vehicle. Ex. A3 is the estimation report dt. 3-8-2012 issued by the insurance surveyor. The complainant did not stated anywhere in his complaint how the fire accident took place in his case. There is no documentary evidence that to show that the accident was occurred. After the fire accident, the complaint had submitted the claim form dt. 14-9-2012 under Ex. B2. In the claim form the complainant clearly stated that the above fire accident was occurred due to vehicle short circuit and caught fire and burnt and damaged. In the complaint the complainant nowhere mentioned about electrical short circuit in the engine. Under Ex. B3 notice dt. 2-9-2012 issued by the complainant to the respondents, the complainant clearly stated that due to electrical short circuit the accident was occurred. He had clearly mentioned that he had fixed TAKAJ 3131 and speakers of 150 watts and head lamps bulbs of bosch company 90/100 company to this vehicle. The complainant in his complaint nowhere mentioned about the company of the car i.e to what company the car belongs. Ex. B4 i.e. technical report of NVK Prasad DAE, dt. 2-11-2013. It is clearly mentioned that IV is having “extra fitments of audio system, speakers and headlight bulbs with high watts i.e. 90/100. The alteration in wing to fix the extra fitment leads to a short circuit in wiring and vehicle got fired. Ex. B5 and Ex. A3 are one and the same estimation reports given by the Insurance surveyor. Ex. B6 was issued by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., dt. 26-10-2012 and Ex. A6 are the same. Both stated that there has been a material objection in the vehicle which was not informed to the company and the relevant premium was not paid. Under all these circumstances it is very clear that the complainant had fixed high voltage audio system, head lights, speakers to his vehicle. As there is high powered vehicle having the short circuit was occurred in the said vehicle. As stated in the counter of R1 and R2 there is no negligence on their part. The complainant is not eligible for any compensation as prayed by him.
25. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 7th March 014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of original policy bearing No. VPC03A3176000100 issued by the
respondents company.
Ex. A2 Original photos 3 nos.
Ex. A3 P/c of estimation dt. 3-8-2012 issued by the insurance surveyor.
Ex. A4 Office copy of legal notice dt. 13-12-2012 along with postal receipts.
Ex. A5 Acknowledgment cards 2 nos.
Ex. A6 P/c of By RPAD issued by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
Exhibits marked for Respondents: -
Ex. B1 P/c of policy schedule of complainant dt. 15-11-2011 issued by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd.,
Ex. B2 P/c of Motor Insurance claim form dt. 14-9-2012.
Ex. B3 P/c of notice dt. 2-9-2012 issued by the complainant to respondent.
Ex. B4 P/c of technical report of NVK Prasad, DAE, dt. 2-11-2013.
Ex. B5 P/c of insurance Surveyor report dt. 3-8-2012.
Ex. B6 P/c of by RPAD issued by the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., dt. 26-10-2012.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri T. Mohana Krishna, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for Respondents.
B.V.P. - - -
