COMPLAINT FILED: 26.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 22nd OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1639/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT N. Krishnappa,<br /> S/o. Narayanappa,<br /> Aged about 31 years,<br /> No. 308, Nagondahalli Colony,<br /> Whitefield Post,<br /> Bangalore – 560 066.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (M.P. Basavaraju)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd,<br /> S No. 84, SVR Complex,<br /> Hosur Main road, Madivala,<br /> Bangalore – 560 089.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate(Manoj Kumar. M.R.)<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. ICICI Bank Ltd.,<br /> ICICI Bank Tower,<br /> 4th Floor, East Wing,<br /> No.1 Commissiarat Street,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (N. Suresh)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<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 insurance claim and pay Rs.4,59,650/- towards the damages caused to the vehicle and pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- 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 /> Complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-53-M-4743. He availed the loan from OP.2 to purchase the said car and OP.1 covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was inforce between 06.01.2007 to 05.01.2008. On 25.12.2007 the said vehicle met with an accident within the jurisdiction of Vijayapura Police Station, Devanahalli. Immediately complainant availed the services of the surveyor and got assessed the damages. Then left the vehicle for repairs, intimated the OP about the accident and damages caused to the vehicle, then sent the claim petition to OP.1. As per the quotation complainant incurred an expenses of nearly Rs.4,59,650/- towards the repairs of the said vehicle. Though complainant produced all the relevant documents as contemplated for the consideration of the OP.1 till 23.07.2008 OP failed to settle the said claim. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to pay the penal interest to OP.2 towards the loan which he has availed. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.1 complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. According to the OP.1 complaint lodged to the concerned police discloses that the said vehicle dashed against the roadside drainage, but whereas the medical records show that one lorry hit the said vehicle. The insured declared value of the said vehicle is Rs.3,88,963/-. Complainant took his own sweat time of 3 days in lodging complaint to the Police, though accident occurred on 25.12.2007. Much water might have been flown during this delay. Looking into the condition of the damaged vehicle, the driver should have sustained some severe injuries. But here in this case driver has escaped unhurt. OP got assessed the so called loss caused to the vehicle and on thorough investigation come to the conclusion that complainant used the said vehicle for commercial purpose and there is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy, thus repudiated the claim on 03.03.2008. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. OP.2 filed the separate version mainly contending that complainant availed loan from them. OP has nothing to do with OP.1 both are independent entities. When complainant availed the loan he is bound to pay the interest as per the terms of the loan agreement. OP.2 has nothing to do with the said accident and the claim made by the complainant before OP.1. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of OP.2. The complaint against OP.2 is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP.2 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP’s have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. 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 in part<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 /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-53-M-4743 and he availed the loan from OP.2 to purchase the said car. OP.1 covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was inforce from between 06.01.2007 to 05.01.2008. It is also not at dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 25.12.2007 within the jurisdiction of Vijayapura Police Station, Devanahalli. Then complainant got assessed the loss and damages through the Surveyor. According to him he require atleast Rs.4,59,650/- towards the repairs of the said vehicle. He intimated OP.1 about the accident and later on filed the claim petition. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though he complied all the formalities, OP.1 failed to settle the claim till 23.07.2008. Hence he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1.<br /> <br /> 8. Of course on the close scrutiny of the complaint, there is no specific allegation of deficiency in service, as far as OP.2 is concerned. When complainant availed the loan, he is bound to repay the same with interest as per the terms of the loan agreement. If any demand is made by OP.2 to recover the outstanding due, that act of the OP.2 does not amounts to deficiency in service. Strictly speaking OP.2 is not at all the necessary party for the dispute on hand. The allegations made against OP.2 are devoid of merits.<br /> <br /> 9. OP.1 has contended that the present complaint is misconceived and there is a suppression of material fact with regard to the actual accident. When once the accident is admitted during the insurance coverage the other aspect of the matter whether the said vehicle is hit by another vehicle or the said vehicle in question lost control and dashed against the wall, etc., thereby severe damages were caused gets less importance. Police after investigation submitted the chargesheet against the driver of the said vehicle. The chargesheet doesnot disclose that any heavy vehicle like lorry dashed against the vehicle of the complaint. Merely because there is some stray entry in the hospital records of Shridi Sai Hospital that injured sustained the injury due to clash between the two vehicle, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the complainant. Even the IMV report does not speak to the involvement of the two vehicles. Under such circumstances in our view that defence of the OP.1 does not hold much force.<br /> <br /> 10. As admitted by the OP.1 the insured declared value of the said vehicle is Rs.3,88,963/-. It appears on the receipt of the claim from the complainant OP.1 referred the matter to the investigator and also availed the services of the surveyor. Both of them have submitted the report. Those reports are produced. As already observed by us, when the competent authority like Police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet only against the driver of the complainant’s vehicle, the private investigators report will not get any importance. When we go through the Surveyor’s report, the said Surveyor examined the vehicle in question on 02.01.2008, though the accident occurred on 25.12.2007 that is nearly after a week and came to the conclusion that the net loss assessed is Rs.4,43,958/-. Complainant claimed the damages and compensation to the tune of Rs.4,59,650/- on the basis of the estimation given by the Garage.<br /> <br /> 11. Though complainant has alleged that OP.1 did not settle the claim well within a stipulated time till 23.07.2008, we do not find force in the said submission because OP.1 after investigation repudiated the said claim on 03.03.2008, that is within a span of 60 to 70 days. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we also do not find force in the defence set out by the OP.1 that there is a suppression of material fact. On the perusal of the records and the documents, we are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. <br /> <br /> 12. The repudiation made is unjust, improper and without due application of mind. Due to the said repudiation complainant for no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves certain relief. We have already referred in the above said paras with regard to the claim of the complainant and the surveyor report and assessment. But in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP.1 to pay the IDV value of Rs.3,88,963/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 is directed to settle the insurance claim for Rs.3,88,963/- and pay the same to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order along with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. The complaint against OP.2 is dismissed.<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 22nd day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />