Complaint filed on: 30.05.2015
Complaint Disposed on:27.04.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.93/2015
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri.Chandrashekar R.N.,
S/o Nirvanappa & Smt. Devamma,
House No.93, Hoovadigara Street,
Ramanahalli, Chikmagalur.
(By Sri/Smt. Lawrence D’zouza, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. Future Generali India Insurance Co.
Limited., Unit No.201 & 202, 2nd Floor,
Inland Avenue, M.G Road, Mangalore-575003.
2. Praveen Capital Private Limited.,
Upstairs of Yamaha Show Room,
Basavanah Main Road, Chikmgalur.
(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. T.R.Harish, Advocate)
(OP No.2 By Sri/Smt. Anil Kumar .R, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 & 2 alleging deficiency in service in not settling the own damage claim to the tune of Rs.1,05,141/-. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos.1 & 2 to settle the own damage claim along with 21% interest p.a. and compensation for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is a registered owner of Maruti Omni Car bearing registration No.KA-02/ME-4308. The said vehicle was purchased by complainant with the financial assistance from 2nd Op and insured with Op no.1. Such being the case, on 05.04.2014 the vehicle met with an accident as the buffalo suddenly came across the road, in order to avoid the collusion the driver applied the break, due to which the vehicle was capsized. Due to the capsize of the vehicle the extensive damages was caused to the vehicle. The said accident was reported to both the Ops. For which the Ops have suggested to prepare an estimate with respect to the damage caused to the vehicle and complainant after the estimation had repaired the vehicle at Shabari Vehicle Painting & Auto Works, K.M. Road, Chikmagalur and estimation was sent to the both Op no.1 & 2. After receipt of the estimation the Op no.1 & 2 have suggested the complainant to repair the vehicle and after repair advised him to send repair bills in order to settle the own damage.
Accordingly, the complainant spent Rs.1,05,141/- towards repair of the vehicle and bills were forwarded to Op no.1 through Op no.2, but after receipt of the bills both the Op no.1 & 2 have not settled the claim of the complainant. Hence, Op no.1 & 2 rendered a deficiency in service in not settling the claim.
Subsequently, the complainant received the letter dated 20.08.2014 from Op no.1 who refused the own damage claim of the complainant. The Op no.1 has refused the claim of the complainant without any valid reasons. Hence, complainant filed this complaint and prays for direction against Op no.1 & 2 to settle the own damage claim along with compensation as prayed above.
3. After service of notice OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version.
4. Op no.1 in his version has contended that this Op have issued an insurance policy in the name of complainant to his vehicle bearing registration no.KA-02/ME-4308 vide policy no.2013-V2484134-FPV for the period from 26.06.2013 to 25.06.2014. The policy is valid as on the date of accident, the liability of this Op if any is governed by terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations of the policy issued to the complainant.
The complainant reported that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 05.04.2014 in near Pillenahalli cross. Thereafter this Op deputed one Mr.Gopalakrishna, surveyor for conducting a survey to process the claim. During subsequent visit of the surveyor it was noticed that the vehicle was lying without any repairs. Thereafter the complainant was requested to repair the vehicle and inform the surveyor for subsequent inspection. Even the two reminders were sent in this regard through their letter dated 15.07.2014 and 30.07.2014, but inspite of receipt of the reminders complainant had not sent any reply or reported any matter with respect to the repair of the vehicle. Due to non receipt of the any reply from the complainant this Op closed the claim of the complainant as the complainant not interested in pursuing the claim. The complainant now had filed this false complainant alleging deficiency in service. The complainant instead of co-operating this Op had filed this false complaint in order to gain wrongfully.
The complainant falsely alleges that he spent nearly Rs.1,05,141/- towards the repair charges, this Op never suggested the complainant to send the repair bills through Op no.2. This Op also not suggested the complainant to give blank cheque. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op in not settling the claim. It is only due to non co-operation of the complainant the surveyor could not conduct the survey to quantify the loss caused to the vehicle. As there is no report with respect to quantifying the claim they have not settled the claim. Hence, they have closed the claim of the complainant through their letter dated 20.08.2014 and submits no deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Op no.2 in his version has contended that this Op has only provided a financial assistance to complainant for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle, the complainant has not obtained any insurance policy to the vehicle from this Op and this Op no way concerned with the Op no.1 with respect to the claim. The complainant has falsely made this Op as the party to this complaint. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op as alleged by complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.10 and one witness on the side of complainant Rajendra filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.11 to P.12 in support of complainant’s case. Op No.1 filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.5.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
10. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op no.1 & 2, we noticed that the complainant is a registered owner of Maruthi Omni bearing registration no.KA-02/ME-4308 and there is no dispute that the complainant had obtained the vehicle insurance policy from Op no.1 which is valid from 26.06.2013 to 25.06.2014. There is also no dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 05.04.2014, when the driver one Kumar C driving the vehicle met with an accident due to sudden appearance of buffalo in the cross road, due to which the vehicle was capsized and damages caused to the vehicle. The accident was reported to Op no.1 & 2, for which Op no.1 deputed one Gopalakrishna, surveyor to inspect the vehicle and to submit survey report. Subsequently, the complainant was also advised to repair the vehicle, but the complainant at the time of another visit of surveyor had not repaired the vehicle. Even inspite of reminders complainant was not responded properly. Hence on 20.08.2014 have repudiated the claim of the complainant for the reason that complainant was not interested in pursuing the claim. The complainant sworn affidavit and states that as per the advise of the Op no.1, the estimation and repair bills were sent to them through Op no.2, even inspite of receipt of the estimation and bills towards repair the Op no.1 & 2 have not settled the claim and prays for settlement of the claim. On going through the documents produced by complainant we noticed that there is no materials to show that complainant had forwarded the estimation and repair bills to Op no.1, but he says that entire bills were sent to Op no.2 in order to forward the same to Op no.1 for settlement. But the Op no.2 had not admitted the facts that complainant had sent the estimation and repair bills to them in order to forward them to Op no.1. Apart from that the complainant has produced copy of the estimation and repair bills before this Forum which are marked as Ex.P.9 and submits that he spent nearly Rs.1,05,141/- towards the repairs. Anyhow the Op no.1 is liable to settle the own damage claim of the complainant by considering the bills produced before this Forum. The Op no.1 being the insurer has repudiated the claim of the complainant only for the reason that he has not pursued the claim, the said repudiation is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, we found there is a deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1 in not settling the claim even after filing this complaint. Hence, Op no.1 is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- for deficiency in service and also Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses along with eligible settlement of the own damage claim to the complainant.
We found no deficiency in service on the part of Op no.2 as the Op no.2 is only a financier who is nothing to do with the settlement of own damage between the complainant and Op no.1. As such the complaint against Op no.2 is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- OP No.1 is directed to settle the eligible own damage claim by receiving the available receipts in the Forum as per the terms and conditions of the policy along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand Rupees only) for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- (One thousand Rupees only) litigation expenses to the complainant. within one month from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- The complaint against Op no.2 is dismissed.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 27th day of April 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Certified copy of the R.C..
Ex.P.2 - Cash bill issued by Shabari Vehicle Painting & Auto Works for
Rs.1,05,141/-.
Ex.P.3 - Repudiation letter dated 20.08.2014 issued by Op no.1.
Ex.P.4 - Letter issued by Op no.1 dated 15.07.2013.
Ex.P.5 & 6 - Copy of the cover note & policy issued by Op no.1.
Ex.P.7 - Vehicle inspection report by Op no.1.
Ex.P.8 - Cash bill issued by Suraj Automobiles dated 11.03.2015.
Ex.P.9 - 2 estimation bills issued by Shabari Vehicle Painting & Auto
works for Rs.69,000/- dated 15.04.2014.
Ex.P.10 - Entire medical records.
Ex.P.11 & 12 - Estimate towards the repair.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex.R.1 - Authorization letter dated 21.07.2016.
Ex.R.2 - Office copy of the letter dated 30.07.2013.
Ex.R.3 - Copy of the Insurance Policy with terms & conditions.
Ex.R.4 - Original claim form.
Ex.R.5 - Postal Ack. due.
Dated:27.04.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
