Date of Filing:16.12.2020

Date of Disposal:30.03.2022  

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 30^th March 2022

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL No.969/2020

1. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rep. by its General Manager,

Peninsula Business park,

Tower-A, 5^th Floor,

Mumbai-400013.

Rep. by its Legal Manager.

2. The Manager,

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Unit No.B, 101B, B wing,

1^st Floor, Brigade Magnum,

Amruthalli, NH7,

International Airport,

Bengaluru.

Rep. by its Legal Manager.

3. The Manager,

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

3^rd Floor, Pinto Road,

Hallmark Building, Hubballi.

Rep. by its Legal Manager.                                 ..........Appellant

(By Mr. Prashanth T Pandit., Adv.)                                      

                                                 -Versus-

Mohammad Jahid,

S/o Abdulgafar Betageri,

Aged about 34 years,

Occ: Business,

R/o House No.36, Birband oni,

Old Hubballi, Hubballi,

Dharwad Dist.                                                    ..........Respondent

-:ORDER:-

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH: PRESIDENT

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 aggrieved by the Order dated 04.11.2020 passed in CC/118/2019 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad (for short District Commission).

2. The Commission heard and examined the impugned order passed by District Forum.

3.  The Brief facts are: Complainant insured his Skoda car bearing Reg.No.KA51/MD1543 with OP company under auto secure private car package policy from the period from 25.07.2017 to 24.07.2018. On 18.07.2018 while crossing Ganesh Weigh Bridge near Karwar road bridge at Hubabbli, suddenly heavy smoke was noticed from the engine room and after opening the bonnet it was seen that the engine wiring was completely burnt. The same was informed to OP. But OPs have repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that complainant has violated condition no.4 of the policy without taking all reasonable steps to safeguard the car from the loss or damage, which amount to deficiency of service on the part of OP. OP appeared before Commission below through learned counsel and contended that, after intimation of claim, OPs appointed IRDA approved surveyor to assess the loss and to submit report and in addition OPs also appointed local investigator to know root cause of loss. The surveyor after inspecting the vehicle reported that cause of burning of engine wire is due to usage of non standard head light bulbs 12 V and additional wiring with relay connected in the head light assembly that generates extensive heat when compared to OE Fitment bulbs which in turn reduces the life of the coupler and wiring resulting in short circuit of electrical system. Further submits that electrical breakdown has caused due to negligence in proper maintenance by complainant, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and sought dismissal of the complaint.  After enquiry, the Commission below recorded findings in favour of complainant and directed OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs.4,50,000/- towards vehicle damage to the complainant with interest @ 07% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 11.02.2019 till realization. Further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and litigation cost respectively.  

4. Aggrieved by the said Order, Appellants/OPs preferred this appeal, on the grounds that, the impugned order is contrary to law and facts, liable to be set aside.

5. Commission heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants/OPs and perused the impugned order passed by Commission below in CC/118/2019, dated 04.11.2020 and papers on records.  Now Commission has to decide whether impugned order passed by the Forum below is contrary to the facts and law as appealed? 

6. Learned counsel for appellant/OPs contented that the Commission below has failed to consider the terms and condition of the policy and failed to consider Investigation Report.  Further contended that in the instant case the damage caused to the vehicle is not due to any accident, but due to negligence of the complainant.  The complainant has not taken proper care of the vehicle and engine and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

7. It is undisputed fact that complainant has insured his car with OP company.  It is also not in dispute that the damage caused to the vehicle due to burning of engine room wiring on account of fire. The only dispute is that the OPs repudiated the claim for the reasons stated supra. In so far as considering the Survey Report and Investigation Report the District Commission rightly recorded sound reasons, observing that, no service history of the vehicle is enclosed to prove that the complainant had fitted hybeam voltage head lamps, which are purchased from local work shop and the appellant/OPs failed to prove that the damage caused to the vehicle is only due to negligence of the complainant by not taking care of the vehicle and engine.  Admittedly, the policy covered risk from 25.07.2017 to 24.07.2018 and the complainant insured the vehicle by showing IDV as Rs.4,50,000/-. Therefore, the District Commission rightly proceed to assess the compensation for the damages caused to the complainant on the basis of Insured Declare Value of Rs.4,50,000/-. In such circumstances, we do not find any error/omission in the impugned order passed by the Commission below, except reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Commission below from 07% to 05%. Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss the appeal with no order as to cost. 

8. Amount in deposit is directed to transfer to the District Forum for needful.

9. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeals.

Lady Member                    Judicial Member                    President

*GGH*