<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 06th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1877/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Krishna PS/o Puttaswamy Gowda,Aged about 32 years,Residing at No.583,Near Old Check Post,10th Cross, Mysore Road,Nayandahalli Panthara Palya,Bangalore – 560 039.Advocate – Sri.E.S.IndireshV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ICICI Bank Towers,Bandra-Kurla Complex,Mumbai – 400 051.INDIA.Represented by its Manager.Advocate – Sri.Shivanne Gowda B.C<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the claim for Rs.1,99,563/- and pay the same with interest along with compensation and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the R.C owner of the vehicle KA-41-4808. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle for the period from 13.09.2007 to 12.09.2008 and issued the policy. Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 20.12.2007. One Muthuraj was the driver of the said vehicle at the time of accident. Due to the said accident severe damages were caused to the vehicle. Immediately Police complaint was lodged. Police authorities have seized the vehicle and after investigation submitted the charge sheet. Complainant did intimate the OP about the damages caused to the vehicle, then sought for settling the insurance claim by producing all the necessary documents. OP retained the said claim for more than 3 months and then on 19.03.2008 repudiated the said claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the impugned vehicle on the date of accident. Hence they are not liable to pay the said damages. The repudiation made by the OP is unjust and improper. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant even by causing the legal notice on 14.06.2008 went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the driver of the said vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving licence, to drive the said goods transport (MGV) he possessed the licence to drive only LMV up to 7500 kgs. On the receipt of the intimation about the accident OP appointed surveyor, got inspected the said vehicle and surveyor has submitted the report stating total loss and damages is only to the tune of Rs.1,45,655/- on repair basis. As the complainant and his driver violated the terms and conditions of the policy OP is justified in repudiating the claim. The other allegations of complainant are false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C owner of the vehicle KA-41-4808 and OP covered the insurance of the vehicle which was in force from 13.09.2007 to 12.09.2008. Policy copy is produced. It is also not at dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 20.12.2007 at about 2.30 p.m and the complaint was lodged to the Police. The concerned police after investigation submitted the charge sheet.<br /> <br /> 7. It is contended by the complainant that one Muthuraj was the driver of the vehicle on the date of accident who possessed valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. Soon after the accident with regard to the damages caused to the vehicle was brought to the notice of the OP and the claim was made to settle the repairs expenses. It appears OP repudiated the said claim on 19.03.2008 that is nearly after 3 months on the ground that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. The letter of repudiation is produced so also the driving licence copy.<br /> <br /> 8. According to the OP the vehicle involved in the accident was the Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV) and not the LMV. Complainant’s driver did possess the driving licence to drive LMV and not MGV. The laden weight of the vehicle involved in the accident is more than 8000 and odd kgs. But whereas the R.C book produced by the complainant shows unladen weight of the vehicle in question is 3950 kgs. The fact that at the time of accident the said vehicle was not transporting any goods and it was empty is not at dispute. OP has not produced any other substantial evidence to show that the said Lorry was found transporting certain goods on that day. Under such circumstances contention of the OP that driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question rather appears to be baseless.<br /> <br /> 9. On receipt of intimation about the accident OP appointed a surveyor and loss assessor. The surveyor report dated 27.12.2007 also speaks to the fact that the unladen weight is 3950 kgs and the registered laden weight 11950 kgs. As admitted by the OP the said surveyor has assessed the loss and damages on repair basis to the tune of Rs.1,45,655/-. When that is so, it would have been more fair on the part of the OP to settle the claim at least to the tune of the above said amount as observed by their own surveyor. Non settlement of the said claim in time must have caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. So the repudiation made by the OP appears to be unjust, improper and without due application of the mind.<br /> <br /> 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Justice will be met by directing the OP to settle the claim as per the surveyors report. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the claim for Rs.1,45,655/- and pay the same to the complainant within four weeks from the date of communication of this order along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 06th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />