THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

APPEAL NO.438/2018

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

M/s Universal Sompo General

Insurance Company Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, KVV Samrat,

217/A, 3^rd Main, Outer Ring Road,

Kasturi Nagar,                                                     ...Appellant/s

Bengaluru-560 043

Note: Local office at

No.363, 2^nd Floor,

Gurukar Devanna Street,

Fort Mohalla, Mysore-570 004

(By Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, Advocate)

-Versus-

Jayaram.R. S/o Ramakrishna,

Aged about 42 years,

R/o LIC 37, 3^rd Stage,                                  … Respondent/s

Near Forest Office,

KHB Colony, Hunsur

(By Sri.K.P.Trimurthy, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/Opposite Party in complaint No.1328/2016 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mysore which directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.89,627/-  towards own damage claim along with interest @15% per annum and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses and submits that the complainant had obtained a comprehensive policy from this OP bearing No.2311/154427312/01/000 towards the car bearing Reg.No.KA-28-N-6939 which is valid from 19.9.2015 to 18.9.2016. Such being the case, on 5-4-2016 the complainant while travelling from Mysore to Bengaluru applied sudden brake due to the wheels got twisted resulting in damages to the insured vehicle and he tendered a vehicle for workshop for repairs and the same was informed to this appellant. After receipt of the said information, this appellant has appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89,627/- and also given an opinion that since there was no external damage was caused to the vehicle suggested for nonpayment of the own damage. Basing on the said report, this appellant repudiated the claim as they have not indemnified the damage which was not caused due to accidental external damages, hence submits no deficiency in service. In spite of that, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amounts. In fact, this appellant is not liable to pay any claim made by the complainant. The District Commission made an error in allowing the complaint without considering the terms and conditions of the policy and defence taken by this appellant. Hence, prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismissed the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard from both sides.   

3. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal, it is an admitted fact that the vehicle bearing Reg. No.28-N-6939 insured with this appellant vide policy bearing No.2311/154426312/01/100 which is valid from 19-9-2015 to 18-9-2016. The only dispute raised by the complainant is that the vehicle suffered damages while he had applied sudden brake which resulted in twisting of the wheels when he was travelling from Mysore to Bengaluru on 5-4-2016. After inspection, the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89,627/- and also opinion that since there was no any external damage caused to the vehicle, there is no liability to pay the any assessed amount. Basing on the said report, this appellant repudiated the claim.  

4. When perusal of the terms and conditions of the policy, this appellant had indemnified the loss or damage to the vehicle when the vehicle was in transit. When such being the case, it is evident that the vehicle was damaged due to sudden application of the brake, when there is coverage for any damages during the transit, the OP cannot take only one ground for repudiation mentioned in SECTION-I. LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE INSURED. The Company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder and/ or its accessories whilst thereon;

i.      by fire, explosion, self ignition or lightning;

ii.     by burglary, house breaking or theft;

iii.    by roil and strike;

iv.     by earthquake (fire and shock damage)

v.      by flood/typhoon/hurricane/storm/tempest/

inundation/cyclone/hailstorm/frost;

vi.     by accidental external means;

vii.    by malicious act;

viii.   by terrorist activity;

ix.    whilst in transit by road/rail/inland –waterway lift/elevator or air;

x.     by landslide/rockslide

5. The repudiation made by the OP, according to us is on flimsy ground. We do not find any valid reasons to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances and allowed the complaint. No interference is required. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

The impugned order 2-1-2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore in CC.No.1328/2016 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member                                    Judicial Member