BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 31^st DAY OF MARCH 2022

                                   ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 (herein after referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OP:-

(a) Direct the Op to settle the insurance claim of Rs.6,32,742/-.

(b) Direct the OP to make payment towards interest on the above claim value for a period of 13 months till date of filing of this claim at 18% p.a. amounting to Rs.1,23,385/-/.

(c) To direct the OP to pay Rs.1,42,500/- towards parking charges.

(d) To direct the OP to pay Rs.81,250/- as alternative commute charges.

(e) To direct the OP to pay future parking charges and future commute charges from the date of filing this petition to till date of actual payment.

(f) Damages due to inconveniences caused amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-.

(g) Direct the OP to make payment towards future interest from the date of filing the claim till the date of actual payment of all the aforesaid claims at the rate of 18% p.a.

(h) Grant such other reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant being the registered owner of Ford Pigo bearing No.KA-50-P-6464 as private passenger car insured the same with OP for the period from 19.08.2016 to 17.08.2017.  The vehicle met with an accident on 11.11.2016 at 11.30 PM and car was badly damaged.  The complainant was arrested and he was kept in judicial custody.

3. It is further case of the complainant that his car was seized and he has obtained release order dated 17.01.2017.  On 18.01.2017, the complainant intimated call center of OP about accident and obtained estimation for Rs.5,78,412/- from Authorised Service Centre Cauvery Ford.

4. The vehicle was insured for Rs.6,32,742/-. Despite furnishing all the records, the OP failed to comply the claim of the complainant.  He is liable to pay Rs.1,42,500/- to M/s Cauvery Ford, Mysuru Road, Bengaluru towards parking charges.  He hired the vehicle to attend his day to day work.  Therefore, this complaint is filed for Rs.10,79,877/-.  Hence, this complaint.

5. After receipt of notice, the OP appears and files version.  The complaint and claim are not maintainable.  The vehicle of the complainant was insured with OP.  The vehicle met with an accident and complainant failed to intimate the fact of accident to the OP.  The complaint suffers due to delay in intimation.  The claim of the complainant is exorbitant.  The complainant failed to produce the required documents.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

6. The complainant files his affidavit evidence and relies on 25 documents. OP has filed affidavit evidence of its official and approved surveyor.  OP relies on 18 documents. Heard the arguments and perused the records.  

7. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

8. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Partly in the affirmative

      Point No.2:- Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

9. Point Nos.1 and 2: Even though both the parties have produced documents in support of their contention.  At the first instance, it is proper to refer the admitted facts.
10. The complainant insured his vehicle bearing No.KA-50-P-6464 with OP for sum insured amount of Rs.6,32,742/- by paying insurance premium of Rs.30,999/-.  This insurance policy was in force from 19.08.2016 to 17.08.2017.
11. During the subsistence of insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 11.11.2016 and case came to be registered with Yelahanka Police Station on 12.11.2016 for offence punishable under Section 279 and 304 Indian Penal Code.  It is proved that one person succumbed to injury in the accident.  Subsequently, the police have filed the charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A Indian Penal Code.  Even though FIR indicates that this complainant being the rider of car bearing No.KA-50-P-6464 was driving the car in drunken mode.  However, the police filed charge sheet stating that the report of Forensic Laboratory does not indicate that the accused was driven the car under the influence of instacation.
12. It is also proved that complainant is an accused was arrested in the above case and produced before MAT 3^rd Court, Bengaluru on 26.11.2016 and he was enlarged on bail only on 27.12.2016 as per the order of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.9094/2016 dated 04.12.2016.
13. Even though, the complainant asserts that he intimated the fact of accident to the customer care of the OP on 18.01.2017.  But, this fact is not proved.  Even presuming for the sake of arguments, the complainant failed to intimate the fact of accident to the OP.  But, registration of criminal case against the complainant on 12.11.2016 itself as an indication to the public at large about involvation of this complainant and his vehicle in vehicular accident.  Registration of FIR itself is an intimation to the OP insurance company. 
14. Later on, the complainant has obtained estimation dated 20.01.from Cauvery Ford, Magadi Road, Bengaluru for Rs.5,78,411.96.  When this estimation of cost of repairs, the complainant is not right in claiming Rs.6,32,742/- i.e. insured value.  
15. The complainant has not examined any responsible person of Cauvery Ford to prove the legality of estimation.  In the absence of material evidence of responsible person of Cauvery Ford, the estimation submitted by the complainant cannot be accepted, in view of the surveyor examined and surveyor report produced by the OP to show the cost of the repairs.
16. The notices were exchanged between complainant and OP between 1^st March 2017 to 24.03.2017 and complainant got issued a legal notice.  The OP asked the complainant to produce the certain documents namely clarification of delay in intimation, driving license extract, injury details, MLC report, copy of FIR, copy of charge sheet and original towing bill.  Even though, the complainant has produced material documents with OP on 12.07.2017.  But, the complainant has not produced the towing bill to claim towing charges.
17. The official of OP reiterated the facts stated in the version in affidavit evidence.  Nagaraju, Authorized surveyor give his evidence for OP that he surveyed the damaged vehicle and estimated the cost of repairs including parts and labour was Rs.4,97,340/-.  The evidence of 2^nd witness and his report about estimation cost at Rs.4,97,340/- not only proved.  But, evidence of 2^nd witness and his report remained unchallenged.  Under such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to Rs.4,97,340/- from the OP towards repairs of spare parts and labour charges.
18. The complainant claims Rs.1,42,500/- towards parking charges.  But, complainant has not substantiated this fact who has demanded this amount from the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant neither produced the bill showing demand of Rs.1,42,500/- and also not examined any such person demanding Rs.1,42,500/-.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to Rs.1,42,500/- towards parking charges.
19. The complainant claims Rs.81,250/- towards an alternative commute charges.  According to the complainant, he was running this vehicle as a private passenger car.  The complainant has not produced any document to show that what was his income prior to the accident and how much loss of income he has suffered after the accident.  The complainant claim of Rs.81,250/- towards commutation charges is not proved.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to whom for what purpose he spent Rs.81,250/-.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to this amount.
20. The complainant claims Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, legal notice and other charges.  Even though, receipt of report of its Surveyor Nagaraju, OP failed to settle the claim of the complainant at least to the extent of Rs.4,97,340/-.  The non payment of this amount of Rs.4,97,340/- by the OP amounts to deficiency of service.  When the complainant has produced all the documents including the copy of the charge sheet, the OP purposely failed to consider the claim of the complainant at least Rs.4,97,340/-.  The non-payment of this amount clearly establishes that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Even though, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed by the complainant is exorbitant.  The report of Nagaraju, Surveyor is dated 9^th February, 2017, this complaint came to be filed on 03.10.2018.  The non-settling of this claim of Rs.4,97,340/- within reasonable time, use the scope of award some compensation.  Therefore, it is proper to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- including cost of litigation.   
21. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the OP is liable to pay Rs.4,97,340/- and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation.  The complaint is requires to be allowed in part.   We proceed to pass the following

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part. 
2. The OP shall pay Rs.4,97,340/- and pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant.
3. The OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this date, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 8% p.a. on Rs.4,97,340/- after expiry of 60 days till realization.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 31^st March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-