Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/121/2017

M.Sivakozhundhu,s/o.Mathavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman and Managing Director,M/s.ICICI Lomboard General insurance ,General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.B.S.Padmanabhan & P.Mohan prasant

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on:18.08.2017                                                                  

                                                                     Date of disposal          :17.08.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT:    THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                        TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                           : MEMBER-1

                                   THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA    : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.121/2017

 

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 17^THDAY OF AUGUST 2022 

           M.Sivakozhundhu               

                                                                                              Aged about 41 years,

No.114, Kanchipuram,

Chennai- 631 501.….Complainant

 

•  

 

1. Chairman and Managing Director,

M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

401 & 402, 4^th Floor, Interface 11,

New linking Road, Malad (West),

Mumbai-400 064.

 

2. The General Manager,

M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Registered Office: ICICI Lombard House,

414 Veer Savarkar Marg,

New SidhiVinayak Temple,

Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025.

 

3. The Regional Manager,

M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Regional Office, 84 & 85, Walltax Road,

Chennai-600 003.

                                                                                      ….     Opposite Parties

Counsel for the complainant                 :M/s. B.S.Padmanabhan and 1 other

Counsel for the opposite parties         : M/s. S.S.SajeevKesan

 

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.   : PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest thereon at 18% p.a. and costs from 06.10.2015 till date of payment (being (a)Rs.3,53,000/- towards sum assured value of the damaged van TN 21 AM 5737 (b) a sum of Rs.6,47,000/- towards damages for mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant due to the dereliction of duties of the opposite parties, as an insurer) and pass such order.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant stated that he is the owner of the Ashok Leyland goods van bearing Registration No. TN 21 AM 5737.  The complainant stated that the said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties bearing no.3003/83983782/01/000 from 19.10.2014 to 18.10.2015 and the complainant has insured the vehicle for a value of Rs.3,53,000/-.  The complainant stated that in an accident on 06.10.2015 at Chennai caused by the rash and negligent driving of the opposite party vehicle, the complainant’s van was completely damaged and the driver was grievously injured. The case was registered before C-2 Sunguvarchathram Police Station against the driver of the van bearing Reg No. TN 05 AZ 2560 for rash and negligent driving and for causing grievous injuries to the occupants of the van and for damaging the goods van bearing Reg No. TN 21 AM 5737,  the said vehicle was inspected by RTA authorities and the vehicle was not roadworthy and damaged beyond repair. The complainant towed the vehicle Ashok Leyland authorized service station, Poonamalle, who estimated the value of repair charges of RS.3,56,882.92 dated: 16.10.2016. The complainant stated that he preferred a claim under the policy submitted all the vehicle documents on 30.04.2016, repudiated the complainant’s claim contending that at the time of damage, the complainant’s vehicle was carrying more passengers than the registered seating capacity in the vehicle. The complainant stated that the reason assigned by the opposite parties for repudiating the complainant’s lawful claim is very flimsy and such alleged overloading of passengers was not the cause for the accident of damage to the complainant’s vehicle,  the claim Repudiation made by the opposite party is without valid reasons. Hence the opposite parties are liable to reimburse the value of the vehicle insured at Rs.3,53,000/-.  Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 to 3 IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties denies all the allegations made in complaint, except those that are specifically admitted herein and the complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations made therein. The opposite parties stated that the complainantowned of the Ashok Leyland goods van bearing Registration No. TN 21 AM 5737.  The complainant stated that the said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties under policy no.3003/83983782/01/000 for the period from 19.10.2014 to 18.10.2015 for a sum assured of  Rs.3,53,000/-.  The opposite parties denies the allegations in the complaint that on 06.10.2015 at Chennai Kancheepuram Road, complainant’s van bearing no. TN 21 AM 5737 was totally damaged to an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the van bearing Reg no. TN 05 AZ 2560 resulting the driver of complainant’s van and sustaining injuries and the van completely damaged and the repair charges of van was estimated at Rs.3,56,882.92.  The opposite party submitted that on the receipt of the belated claim, they appointed an investigator to ascertain into the genuiness of the claim, the alleged vehicle was carrying more than the permitted number of passengers at the time of accident thus violating the terms and conditions and conditions of the policy and the MV Act. The opposite party intimated to the complainant on 30.04.2016 that there was violation of terms and conditions since at the time of the  accident  his vehicle was carrying more than the registered seating capacity in the vehicle. It is submitted that even according to the complainant and the police records there were  3 persons travelling in the vehicle instead of the seating capacity of 2 persons.   It is further submitted that the complainant had failed the FIR after a delay of more than 2 days.  The complainant is put to strict proof that he had intimated the opposite parties immediately.  In any event the complainant ought to have intimated the police authorities and the opposite parties immediately on the occurrence of the incident. Opposite party letter dated 30.04.2016 the complainant was informed that the claim was repudiated.  The opposite parties submitted that the complainant had committed breach of the conditions of the policy and also committed a breach of terms and conditions.  The opposite parties submitted that in view of the breach of the fundamental condition of the insurance the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. The opposite parties submitted that it is well settled law that the insurer has no liability once there is a breach of condition of insurance policy. It is therefore submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part opposite parties 1 to 3 as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainants have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked on their side.The opposite parties 1 to 3 has filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B4 is marked on his side.

4.POINT NO :1

                  The fact that the complainant is the owner of Ashok Leyland goods vehicle with Reg No.TN 21 AM 5737 and the same was insured with the opposite party from 19.10.2014 to 18.10.2015 for the value of Rs.3,35,000/- by the complainant which met with an accident on 06.10.2015 at SunguvarChathram which was caused by the rash and negligent driving  of the opposite vehicle for which an FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle were admitted by both the parties.  According to the complainant his vehicle was damaged and the occupants were also injured and a claim was preferred by submitting all documents to the opposite party and the value of repair charges were estimated at Rs.356882.92 as per estimate dated: 16.10.2016  but the opposite parties repudiated the claim on 30.04.2016 by contending that at the time of accident the complainants vehicle was carrying more passengers than the seating capacity which according to the complainant is incorrect and overloading of the passengers was not the cause of accident and the accident happened only due to the negligence of the offending vehicle and therefore the complainant prayed for Rs.3,53,000 being the sum assured for the vehicle along with the other reliefs.   

                   5. But on the other hand the opposite parties contended that the complainant had filed the FIR after the delay of more than two days and he ought to have intimated to the police and opposite parties immediately as per the terms  and conditions of the policy and thereby violated the policy conditions and further contended that even according to the complainant as per the police records the three persons were travelling in the vehicle instead of seating capacity of two persons and thereby violated the terms and conditions and hence the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties rightly and contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part.         

                 6.  It is found from Ex.A1 the permitted seating capacity of the complainant light goods vehicle  is only two which includes the driver also.  In Ex.A2 in the policy schedule it has been clearly stated that the policy does not cover when the vehicle is used for carrying excess number of permitted capacity and it is found from the Ex.A3 FIR though it was registered against the driver of the offending opposite vehicle apart from driver two more persons were seating in the cabin of the complainant’s vehicle which is excess load than the permitted capacity.  It is found from the Ex.A5 that the vehicle was inspected and estimate for repair of the said vehicle was also given under Ex.A6 the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties for the reasons as stated above.  The opposite parties have filed the insurance policy and terms and conditions which were marked as Ex.B1 and B2. It is found from Ex.B4 surveyor report that the complainant vehicle was carrying more than registered seating capacity of the vehicle and violated of the policy limitations. The complainant counsel relied upon a decision reported in 2016(1) TN MAC page no. 426 (SC) Lakshmi Chand   Vs Reliance General Insurance dated :07.01.2016 and contended that mere allowing of more persons than the seating capacity in the goods vehicle  does not amount to breach of policy conditions when the accident was due to the negligence of the offending vehicle. Instead of two persons five persons travelled in that case. Where as the opposite party relied upon  a Decision reported in R.P.No.3525/2013 Dated08.04.2016 NCDRC Dubey Travels Vs  Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and contended that over loading of the vehicle will affect the steering control and increase the chances of driver loosing the control of the vehicle which may result in accident and hence it is fundamental breach of policy conditions.  The decision relied on complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the policy conditions notice shall given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident.  Here the accident happened on 06.10.2015, but there is no proof to show that intimation of accident was immediately given to opposite parties. Even intimation was given to police as per the FIR only on 08.10.2015 after a delay of two days by the complainant there was no explanation for the said delay which is one of the breach of conditions secondly even as per the FIR and Ex.A1 three persons travelled in the goods vehicle against permitted capacity of two persons which is another violation of the policy conditions.  Since the size of the cabin of the complainant light goods vehicle is having very small space even the travelling of two more persons apart from driver would have also contributed for the happening of the accident since the driver may not be able to steer the vehicle freely and hence it amounted to fundamental breach of policy condition, and the same was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties and it is found that there is no  deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1  there is no deficiency in service on the part of  Opposite parties 1 to 3 as alleged in the complaint.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Point No.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.    

 

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17^th day of August 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1		Registration certificate of Ashok Leyland van Reg no. TN 21 AM 5737.
Ex.A2	19.10.2014	Insurance policy in respect of Van TN 21 AM 5737
Ex.A3	08.10.2015	FIR in Crime No. 593 of 2015 of C2 Sunguvarchathram Police Station.
Ex.A4	12.10.2015	Motor vehicle inspector’s report in respect of Van TN 21 AM 5737
Ex.A5	16.10.2015	Estimate for repairs in respect of Van TN 21 AM 5737
Ex.A6	30.04.2016	Repudiation letter in respect of Van TN 21 AM 5737
Ex.A7	13.07.2016	Advocate Notice.
Ex.A8		Postal acknowledgement letter.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ex.B1		Policy of Insurance.
Ex.B2		Terms and conditions.
Ex.B3	30.06.2016	Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant
Ex.B4	26.04.2016	Survey report.

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                      MEMBER II                                    PRESIDENT

 

C.C.No.121/2017, Dated:17.08.2022 Order Pronounced, In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.     Member-I     Member-II   President