BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.337-2013

DATED ON THIS THE 11^th November 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C,

Member,

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay the actual repair charges of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service, wilful negligence and hardship caused with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant’s vehicle met with an accident and got damaged on Hubli-Bangalore Highway on 28.05.2013.  None of the inmates injured and no damage cause to the lorry, hence the police did not registered the case.  The complainant informed opposite parties on 31.05.2013 and made the claim.  The opposite parties repudiated the claim.  The Trident Hundai Motors, Bangalore estimating the total loss and informed the car cannot be repaired.  Hence, the aggrieved filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party filed its version, denying the allegations as false and contends the complaint is liable to be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.  The opposite party admits the issuance of insurance policy and the same was in force on the date of accident.  Opposite party submits that, it has received the claim intimation on 31.05.2013, stating his vehicle while driven by himself had met with an accident and suffered damages on 28.05.2013.  The opposite party further submits, in the claim documents, the complainant mentioned the driver as Raghavendra and the accident occurred at Kanakapura Road at 6.00 AM.  The opposite parties investigation report confirms the occurance near Hubli City, driven by Sri Raghavendra.  Hence, the claim is repudiated on the ground of mis-representation and contradictory statements.  As such prays for dismissal of the complaint as vexatious.
4.     The complainant lead his evidence by filing affidavit and relied on certain documents.  The opposite party also filed affidavit. Both parties not filed the written arguments, as well as not made the oral submissions.  Perusing the documents, matter posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim in respect of his car and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant, owner of the vehicle (car), insured his vehicle with opposite party and same valid from 01.03.2013 to 28.02.2014.  It is submitted that, one Mr.Raghavendra took his car to go to Hubli and while returning from Hubli to Bangalore, hit the lorry and got damaged on 28.05.2013.  Fortunately none of the inmates of the car were injured.  Even the lorry was not damaged, hence the police did not registered the case.  The vehicle brought to Bangalore and left for repair with Trident Hundai Motors.  The complainant informed about the accident to the customer care service of opposite parties, who issued the claim number on 31.05.2013.  The surveyor inspected the vehicle at Trident Hundai Motors, at Bangalore and taken the statement of the Driver.  The surveyor rejected the claim without any reasons.  The Hundai Trident Motors estimated the total loss and informed the vehicle cannot be repaired.  Hence, complainant claimed the insurance company is bound to pay the policy amount.  On repudiation of claim alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and sought for the reliefs.
8.    The opposite party contended that, the complainant has not disclosed the truth and suppressing the facts filed the complaint with an intention to make wrongful gain only.  The opposite party admitted the issuance of the policy and the same was in force on the date of accident. The liability of opposite party is subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy.
9.    Further, the opposite party contended that, on 31.05.2013, its customer care centre, received information about occurrence of the accident, stating while he was driving his car on 28.05.2013, the damage suffered to the car.  But, the complainant made the insurance claim, wherein the driver of the car has been mentioned as Raghavendra and the place of occurrence of the accident on Kanakapura Road at 6.00 AM.  Whereas the investigator confirming the accident, informed that Raghavendra was driving the car at the time of occurrence near Shiggavu Village about 52 KM away from Hubli city and to that effect, the driver has executed a letter.  Based on the contradictory information, the insurance claim has been repudiated on the ground of suppression and mis-representation of facts.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part, as such, prayed for dismissal of the same with costs.
10. On perusal of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant lent his car to one Raghavendra and while he was driving the car on Hubli National Highway, near Shiggavu Village, due to bad weather and light, rammed a lorry parked on the roadside and hit the median, causing considerable damage to the car.  Since none of the inmates of the car injured, the jurisdictional police did not registered the case.  Later, the car was shifted to Bangalore, where the investigator inspected the vehicle and collected necessary information.  Based on the report of the investigator, the insurance claim has been repudiated on the ground of suppression of material facts and also on the basis of the information furnished in the claim form, wherein, the complainant informed that, the car met with an accident near Kanakapura Road on 28.05.2013, in the early hours of the day, hit the pole and the divider same resulted in damages to the car.  Based on the investigators report, the opposite party contended that the accident occurred on Hubli National Highway near Shiggavu and not on Kanakapura Road as mentioned in the claim form.  Hence, repudiation of the claim is justified in absence of cogent evidence. Hence, we are of the opinion that, the complaint is frivolous, and vexatious, accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.     Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 11^th November 2016)