BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.102/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 14^th December 2018

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

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                   

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.                           

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay Rs.1,78,858/- being the repair charges of his car with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of claim of the amount and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the mental agony, harassment etc., and to pay the litigation expenses with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant, owner of the Hundai grand i10 Car, bearing registration No.KA-12-A-6200, had purchased a package insurance policy from opposite party, on payment of premium of Rs.24,604/- on 24.01.2016.  The car met with an accident on 22.01.2016, with the motor cycle driven very rash and negligently.  Due to the accident, the car turned turtle on the road side and the complainant/driver and other inmates sustained injuries.  The injured were shifted to Periyapatna Government Hospital for treatment.  The Periyapatna police registered the complaint and the complainant got released the vehicle from the custody of police.  The accident intimation was given to opposite party with relevant documents.  The opposite party rejected the claim for misrepresentation.  A legal notice was issued, demanding settlement of the claim, which was replied untenably by opposite party.  Hence, the aggrieved filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party denying the allegations filed their version.  The insurance policy valid between 14.01.2016 to 13.01.2017 in respect of the vehicle is admitted.  On receipt of accident information, an IRDA licensed surveyor  and loss assessor was appointed to conduct the survey and to assess the loss, who assessed the damage at Rs.1,16,537/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  M/s Nquire, the investigator was appointed to find out the veracity of the incident and who submitted report on 26.08.2016.  The report revealed that, there was contradiction in statements, of injured and the inmates of the vehicle.  It was found that, the complainant was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and all the injured were shifted to the Government Hospital at Periyapatna and later to Kushalnagar.  The MLC record does not revealed any treatment availed by the complainant and his friends.  The investigator also found that, one Anitha was driving the car at the time of accident.  Thereby the complainant misrepresented the facts to make the claims.  Hence, the claims were rejected and denied the allegation of deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To establish the facts, both parties filed their affidavit evidence and several documents in support of their contentions.  Written arguments filed and heard the respective counsels.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.  
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled for the reliefs sought from opposite party, in respect of the claims preferred towards expenses incurred for repair of the damaged car, under the policy?
2. What order?

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

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant had obtained a insurance policy, in respect of his new car (Hyundai Grand i10) bearing registration No.KA-12-Z-6200 valid between 14.01.2016 to 13.01.2017.  The premium Rs.24,604/- was paid.
8.    The car met with an accident on 22.08.2016, while the complainant and his family members moving from Periyapatna to Hunsur, due to the rash and negligent driving of a motor cycle bearing No.KA-45-A-5219.  The complainant and the inmates sustained injuries and obtained treatment at Periyapatna Government Hospital.  The jurisdictional police registered the case and seized the vehicle, which got to be released by the complainant.
9.    The accident intimation was delivered to the opposite party, their surveyor and loss assessor and the investigator gathered information about the damage suffered and occurrence of the accident and submitted report to opposite party.  On the basis of the report, the opposite party intimated that, the complainant was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and hence the claims preferred under the policy has been repudiated for mis-representation.
10. Considering the pleadings, evidence and material documents placed on record, the complainant got insured his car with opposite party on payment of premium and during the subsistence of the policy, the car got damaged in an accident, due to rash and negligent driving of a motor cycle.  The complainant and their family members travelling in car sustained injuries and availed treatment at Government Hospital, Periyapatna. 
11. The opposite party’s surveyor and loss assessor thoroughly assessed the damage suffered and reported the loss to the extent of Rs.1,16,537/-.  The opposite party’s investigator also gathered information from the complainant and the inmates of the vehicle and on contradictory statements, learnt that, the complainant was not driving the car at the time of the alleged accident and thereby opined that, the complainant misrepresented to prefer the claims under the policy.  The opposite party, merely on the basis of opinion expressed by the investigator, repudiated the claims preferred by the complainant, which is not correct and justifiable.  As such, the complainant is entitled for the payment of admissible claim amount assessed by the surveyor, under the policy and also compensation for the deficiency in service.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, the complaint is to be allowed in part.  The opposite party is liable to pay the repair charges as per the assessment made by the surveyor, in accordance with the insurance policy and to pay compensation for the deficiency in service.  Hence, the following. 

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,16,537/- towards expenditure for repair of the car to the complainant, within 60 days.  In default to pay, interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order, till payment.
3. The opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenditure, to the complainant, in 60 days.  Failing to comply, the said total sum of Rs.7,000/- carries interest at 12% p.a. until compliance.  
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. 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 14^th December 2018)