THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH).
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 963/2015
National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Mangalore Divisional Office,
No.11, Rasik Chambers,
Market Road, Mangalore,
Rep. by their Senior Divisional Manager.
Now Represented by, Manager,
Consumer Cases Department,
National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office, No.144, 2nd Floor,
Shubram Complex, M.G.Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
……….Appellants.
(By Shri/Smt. V.Subramani, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Mr. T.K.Aiyappa,
S/o Kunju, Kunjalageri Village,
Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District.
(Party-in-person)
:ORDERS:
BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI - MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated:19/05/20152012 passed by Kodagu District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.86/2014.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
The complainant is the owner of Tata Indica Viesta Car bearing registration No.KA:12:A:8537 which was purchased in the year 2013. The said vehicle was insured with the opponent vide policy bearing policy No.25331031120150053017 dated:23/03/2013 and the same was valid from 23.03.2013 to 23.03.2014. The complainant further submitted that he is having a driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle throughout issued by the RTO, Madikeri bearing DL.No.KA:12 20130003173 dated:18/05/2013 and the said vehicle is classified as light motor vehicle and hence the complainant is eligible to drive the above vehicle as per the classification.
The complainant further submitted that the above said vehicle met with an accident on 08/12/2013 in a place called Kota, Udupi Taluk as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of a Lorry bearing registration No. KL:11:W:5671 which came from the opposite direction. The complainant further submitted that the FIR was lodged by the Kota Police Station against the driver of the said Lorry in FIR No.253/2013 under section 279 and 337 of IPC. The complainant further submits that due to the accident, he was sustained bodily injuries and was admitted to Mahesh Hospital Brahmavar, Udupi and the complainant had to take rest for some days, due to which the complainant could intimate the information of accident to the opponent only on 23.01.2014 and hence requested the Opposite Party to ignore the delay in intimating the said accident to the opponent. The complainant further submitted that the opponent had got the vehicle surveyed by a duly licensed surveyor attached to Auto Matrix, Manglaore on 24/01/2014 and had assessed the loss to the amount of Rs.3,37,375/-. The complainant had asked the Opposite Party to treat the above said vehicle as total loss, but the opponent had evaded its liability stating that the complainant did not have valid and effective driving license and the PSV badge.
The complainant further submitted that being frustrated with the delay tactics of the Opposite Party, the complainant finally issued a legal notice to Opposite Party on 31/07/2014 calling upon the opponent to either act upon the survey report or for delivery of new vehicle. The Opposite Party issued a reply notice dated:22/08/2014 and had denied the liability. The said vehicle is kept in the custody of Tata Motors, Auto Matrix, Bejai, Mangalore and the complainant had made a payment of Rs.10,500/- for toeing and other charges. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint.
4. On service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared and contended that the complainant did not have valid and effective driving license and PSV badge to drive the said car at the time of the accident, which is both a criminal offence and violation of policy conditions. The Opposite Party further contended that the complainant realized that there was violation of policy condition and so withdrew the claim taking back the supporting documents which was submitted to the Opposite Party, stating that the complainant would make claim against the lorry KL:11:W:5671 and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. After trail, the District Commission, Kodagu allowed the complaint in part by directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party is in appeal on various grounds.
7. We have heard the arguments.
8. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission, Madikeri and materials on record, we noticed that the respondent is the owner of Tata Indica Viesta Car bearing No.KA:12:A:8537 purchased in the year 2013. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant has issued a passenger carrying package policy bearing No.253310/31/12/01/50053017 holding the permit bearing No.STA-1/TVP/TAXI/1449/2013-14 issued by competent authority which was valid for the period from 23.03.2013 to 22.03.2014 permitted for carrying 4+1 passengers (including driver) and classified/type of vehicle covered is a MOTORCAB. The appellant also admitted that the vehicle was met with an accident at Kota of Udupi Taluk on 08/12/2013 and after intimating to the appellant, the appellant has got a vehicle surveyed by licensed surveyor on 24.01.2014 and had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,37,375/-. However, the appellant denied the liability stating that the complainant did not have valid and effective D.L. and PSV badge to drive the said car at the time of accident.
9. Perused the documents; we noticed that the respondent had valid D.L. (LMV) with permit in respect of Tourist vehicle which is valid up-to 31.12.2027. In view of our opinion, LMV driving license holder can drive any LMV under transport category vehicle (goods and passengers like Minibus, Mini Truck, Taxi, Auto Rickshaw light commercial vehicle and other without separate transport endorsement in a driving license.
10. The appellant came up with the second ground before us that the accident was occurred on 08.12.2013 and the respondent has intimated to the appellant regarding accident only on 23.01.2014 and hence there was delay in intimation to the appellant/company. The complainant also narrated in his complaint that due to the accident he had sustained bodily injuries and was admitted to the hospital and take rest for some days, due to which there was a delay in intimating the accident to the appellant/company. Anyhow, the appellant contended in his appeal memo that on receipt of the claim intimation, even though it was belated, the appellant has arranged survey of the damaged vehicle at the repair workshop i.e., Auto Matrix, Bejai, Mangalore-575 004 and surveyor has investigated the vehicle and submitted a survey report, wherein he assessed the repair charges to the tune of Rs.3,37,375/-.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated:13/12/2019 in Civil Appeal No.2059/2015 in the case between Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd., V/s National Insurance Co., Ltd., reported in 2019(4) CPR 654 (SC), has held as under:-
“Insurance Company cannot travel beyond grounds mentioned in letter of repudiation – If Insurer has not taken delay in intimation as a specific ground in letter of repudiation, they cannot do so at stage of hearing of consumer complaint before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)”.
IMPORTANT POINT: If insurer has not taken delay in intimation as a specific ground in letter of repudiation, they cannot do so at stage of hearing of consumer complaint before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
12. In the present case, the appellant/company not repudiated the claim of the respondent by any letter, hence, the issue before us only whether insurer waived the condition as to delay in intimation by appointing the surveyor? In view of our consideration if the insurer has not taken delay in intimation as specific ground in letter of repudiation, they cannot take such ground at this stage before us. Even though there was no any specific contention taken by the appellant/company about the delay in intimation in his objection in lower court and also in reply notice dated:25.04.2014. Hence, in our opinion, it is not justified to deny the liability stating that the respondent has no valid license at the time of accident and there was a delay in intimation. This type of tendency to resist the claims on such type of grounds by excluding the greater capacity on insurance companies to litigate the long periods of time amounts to harassment to the insurer. Hence, the District Commission has rightly passed an award in this regard. There is no any illegality and irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. No interference is required. Hence, the appeal fails. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:19/05/2015 passed by the District Commission Kodagu in C.C.No.86/2014 is hereby confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the Respondent/complainant.
Return the LCR forthwith to the concerned District Commission.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
