Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/6/2018

E.Gopinadha Reddy, S/o E.Chengalraya Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, - Opp.Party(s)

A.Sudarsana Babu

22 Aug 2019

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                                                              Filing Date: 05-02-2018                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date: 22-08-2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                                                                Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

 THURSDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.06/2018

Between

E.Gopinadha Reddy, S/o. E. Chengalraya Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 32 years, residing at D.No.167,

Mitta Kandriga, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                                      … Complainant

 

And

1. M/s. Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its authorized Signatory, E8, EPIP,

RIICO Industrial area, Sitapura,

Jaipur – 302022 (Rajasthan).

 

2. M/s. Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its authorized Signatory, D.No. 19-3-12(M),

3^rd Floor, Renigunta Road, Tirupati,

Chittoor District.

 

3. M/s. Chola MS General Insurance,

Rep. by its authorized Signatory,

Sunshine Plaza, 3^rd Floor, Ramalingapuram,

Nellore town & District.                                                              … Opposite parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 19.07.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsel for the complainant, and Sri. K. Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12(1)of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay an amount of           Rs. 2,05,000/- which was paid by the complainant towards cost of the repairs of the vehicle along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim dt: 15.07.2017 till the date of realization and to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony due to deficiency in service and to pay costs of the complaint.

        2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant in order to eking his livelihood,  purchased TATA Ace motor vehicle bearing registration No.AP03-Y-6138 and running the vehicle by himself as a driver to meet his day to day expenses. The complainant further submits that, he insured the said vehicle with opposite party No.3 vide policy No.3379/01210870/000/00 and cover note No.57360652 for the period starting from 07.07.2015 to 06.07.2016.  Further by the advise of his friends, he insured his vehicle with the opposite party 1 and 2 vide policy No. 417053/31/17/002070 for the period starting from 29.07.2016 to the mid night of 28.07.2017 and in the said certificate cum policy schedule issued by the opposite parties 1 and 2, they have categorically mentioned the previous policy number of M/s. Cholamandalam M/s. General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., i.e. opposite party No.3.

     3. The complainant further submits that, on 25.06.2017 while he was proceeding from Tirupati to Maidukuru in his vehicle loaded with the material and when he reached Cheyyeru bridge which is at the entrance of Nandaluru town at about 3.30Pm, all of a sudden black smoke came from the front portion of the vehicle. By noticing the fire the complainant stopped and tried to put out the fire with the help of pedestrians. By that time, the wiring of the engine side fully burnt and damaged. The seats of the vehicle were partly damaged and the goods meant for transport were also partially burnt and damaged. Hence he immediately lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer of Nandaluru Police Station and the police officials visited the scene of occurrence, examined and noted the damages and to that effect they have given a damage certificate dt: 03.07.2017 and the incident was also published in local newspaper on 26.06.2017.

     4. The complainant further submits that, he approached the opposite party No.2 and intimated the incident and claimed damages, but the opposite party initially expressed their willingness to compensate the damage under the policy as the policy was in force and also asked the complainant to bring the estimation for the repairs. Accordingly the complainant got estimation for repairs from Varalakshmi Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., who is the TATA Vehicle dealer, Tirupati dt: 01.07.2017 and submitted the claim along with necessary documents to the opposite party No.2. As there was no response from the opposite party No.2 the complainant himself approached them and to his shock and surprise he was given the xerox copy of the letter dt:15.07.2017 wherein they have stated that the claim cannot be accepted because, he has provided a wrong information and found that the policy is fake. Hence the complainant further stated that, only in order to evade his claim the opposite party No.2 made false and frivolous allegations and repudiated the claim  unjustly by making all untenable allegations though everything is within their knowledge. The complainant further submits that, as he purchased said vehicle only for his livelihood and due to the damage caused to vehicle and due to negligence and deficient attitude of the opposite party No.2 by not considering his claim, he was put to severe financial loss and troubles as he could not earn for his livelihood. Having no other go with great difficulty, he got the vehicle repaired with the local mechanic by spending an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- which was borrowed from his friends. Hence as the opposite party failed to consider his claim, he faced troubles and sustained loss due to deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.2. Hence he filed the present complaint.

            The complainant further submits that he made opposite party No.3 as a proforma party to speak about the facts of insurance of the vehicle with them and he is not claiming any relief against them.

         5. Opposite party No.1 filed the written version and same was adopted by opposite party No.2. In the written version, the opposite party No.1 denied the allegations made by the complainant and stated that, the complainant submitted an application to insure his vehicle on 25.07.2016 bearing No.AP03-Y-6138 under policy GCCV – Public Carriers other than three wheeler package policy – Zone C for a period of one year commencing from 29.07.2016 to midnight of 28.07.2017 with policy No. 417053/31/17/002070. The opposite  parties further stated that while obtaining the policy, the complainant has stated that earlier he had a policy with Cholamandalam M/s.General Insurance Company Limited., with policy No. 3779/01/210870/000/00 vide cover note number 57360652 for the period from 07.07.2015 to 06.07.2016 and at the time of taking the policy with them, the complainant took no claim bonus (NCB) as his vehicle never met with an accident and he has not claimed any claim before previous insurance policy. The opposite party 1 and 2 further submitted that, the complainant intimated to them that, his vehicle met with a fire accident on 25.06.2017 near Nandaluru and immediately after intimation to opposite parties 1 and 2 they have appointed a surveyor to conduct the spot survey, after  the spot survey on 26.06.2017 the surveyor submitted his report. The opposite parties further submits that the complainant not turned up for final survey. Hence they issued letter on 27.07.2017 to the complainant to shift the vehicle to the nearest garage and submitted the estimation of repairs to appoint final surveyor to assess the damages. Subsequently, they appointed one M.Haider Saheb to conduct the final survey and after receiving the documents from the complainant with regard to this claim, the said surveyor submitted his report on 06.08.2017 by estimating the damages at Rs.67,500/- after considering the guidelines given by the IRDA while assessing the damages as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

         6. The opposite party further submits that, they have also appointed another investigator by name U. chitra Sanoy to investigate in to the alleged accident. After thorough investigation he filed his report dt: 06.08.2017 confirming that the vehicle pertaining to the complainant met with an accident and further mentioned in his report, that the complainant obtained claim from previous insurance company also and the complainant concealed said fact to the opposite parties while taking the policy with them and obtained NCB (no claim bonus) from the opposite parties 1 & 2 which is nothing but clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy issued to the complainant. The opposite parties further stated that, the policy will be issued with utmost good faith basing on the information furnished by the insured while availing the policy. But the complainant herein concealed material facts which were necessary to calculate the premium to be collected from the complainant while issuing the said policy which is nothing but clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy and hence they repudiated the claim to the complainant. Hence the allegations of the complainant herein that there is deficiency in service on part of them is created and invented by the complainant to have wrongful gain. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

        7.  The opposite party No.3 filed written version by denying the allegations in the complaint and submits that the complainant insured his vehicle bearing No. AP03-Y-6138 with their company under policy No.3779/01/210870/000/00 vide cover note number 57360652 for the period of one year from 07.07.2015 to 06.07.2016 and subsequently the complainant did not renew his policy with their company and as on the date of alleged accident, there is no policy with their company. The opposite party No.3 further stated that, there is no privity of contract between 3^rd opposite party and the complainant as on the date of alleged fire accident and hence the complaint is not maintainable against them. The complainant added them as a party unnecessarily and also submitted that the complainant has not made any claim against them and added them as a proforma parties without claiming relief against them. Hence the complaint against them is liable to be dismissed as no relief was prayed against them.

        8. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party No.1and 2 one A.Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o.A. Ramachandra Reddy, working as Legal Executive in first opposite party company filed evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 to B10 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party No.3 one Anandhan, S/o. Guruswamy, working as Assistant Legal Manager in 3^rd opposite party company filed his evidence on affidavit and no documents were marked on behalf of them. Both the complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

       9. Now the point for consideration is:-

       Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

                  10.Point:-  The case of the complainant is, in order to eking his livelihood he purchased one TATA ACE Vehicle bearing registration No.AP03-Y-6138 and filed registration certificate of the said vehicle which is marked as Ex:A1 and he got insured his vehicle with the opposite party No.3 vide policy No. 3779/01/210870/000/00 vide cover note number 57360652 with a period of from 07.07.2015 to 06.07.2016 and filed the insurance policy copy i.e. Ex:A2. Subsequently he insured his vehicle with the opposite parties 1 and 2 herein vide policy No. 417053/31/17/002070 for a period of insurance from 29.07.2016 to midnight of 28.07.2017 under Ex:A3. The complainant further submits that on 25.06.2017 while he was proceeding from Tirupati to Maidukuru in his vehicle loaded with material, at about 03.30Pm when he reached Cheyuru bridge which is an entrance of Nandaluru town, all of  a sudden black smoke came from the front portion of the vehicle and after noticing the same, he stopped the vehicle and observed fire in the engine portion of the car. Though he tried with the help of pedestrian to put out the fire, wiring of the engine side was fully damaged by that time and the seats of the vehicle and the goods meant for transport were also partially damaged. He immediately lodged a complaint before Nandaluru Police Station and the police officials investigated the scene of occurrence and gave damage certificate dt: 03.07.2017 under Ex:A4. The news of the said accident was also published in the Telugu daily newspaper dt:26.06.2017 and the paper clipping was filed under Ex:A5.Immediately the complainant intimated about the accident to the opposite party No.2, and the opposite party No.2 asked to get estimation for repairs from Varalakshmi Automobiles who is a dealer of TATA ACE Motor Vehicles dt:01.07.2017 under Ex:A7 and further there was no response from the opposite party No.2 when he personally approached them, to his shock and surprise, they have given a Xerox copy of letter dt: 15.07.2017 in which it is stated that to the following effect “ During verification of your previous policy details provided by you, we came to know from the previous insurer that (“Policy No. 3379/01210870/000/00) the details provided to us are wrong and found policy is fake, records available against the details given to us of “Cholamandalam General Insurance Company”. Hence we wish to state that there have been deliberate and willful misrepresentations on your part for declaring wrong NCB details and submission of wrong previous policy details, so we are unable to consider your claim and closing as “NO CLAIM”. Though the complainant submitted his claim with requisite documents, the opposite party No.2 unjustly repudiated the claim by making all untenable allegations in order to evade payment of the claim. Hence because of the attitude of the opposite party No.2 the complainant suffered financial loss and troubles as he could not meet his daily livelihood since his vehicle was kept idle without effecting repair. The complainant,  having  no other option, got the vehicle repaired by a local mechanic in Auto Nagar by spending an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- by borrowing from his friends for repairs and filed a receipt under Ex:A8 issued by the mechanic. Finally the complainant caused a legal notice to the opposite parties under Ex:A9 dt: 18.09.2017. After receipt of the said notice the opposite parties failed to issue reply and consider the claim of the complainant and falsely repudiated the claim without any reason which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The counsel for the complainant further stated that, he took policy from the opposite party No.3 for the year 07.07.2015 to 06.072016 which is prior to taking of the policy from opposite parties 1&2.  Hence they have added them as a necessary party but no relief was claim against opposite party No.3.

                  11. The counsel for the opposite party 1 and 2 admitted the policy of the complainant commence from 29.07.2016 to midnight 28.07.2017 vide policy No.417053/31/17/002070  and while obtaining the policy the complainant has stated that, he had a policy with a Cholamandalam M/s. General Insurance Company Limited., with policy No. 3779/01/210870/000/00 vide cover note number 57360652 for the  period from 07.07.2015 to 06.07.2016 and also at the time of taking the policy with opposite party No.1 and 2, gave particulars or earlier policy to the opposite party No.1 and also he has stated that, he has not made any claim before the Cholamandalam Insurance and availed NCB (No Claim Bonus) from the opposite party No.1. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 stated that after receiving the information from the complainant about the accident,  they have appointed a spot surveyor after thorough survey he filed his report which is marked under Ex:B4 and thereafter final surveyor was also appointed and after thorough final survey on the basis of the documents submitted by complainant  Mr. Haider Saheb conducted survey and filed the report under Ex:B5. The counsel for the opposite party further stated that they have also appointed one investigator one U.Chitra Sanoy to investigate about the alleged accident. After thorough investigation, the said investigator filed his report dt: 06.08.2017 under Ex:B7. In the said investigation report, it was clearly mentioned that the vehicle pertaining to the complainant met with an accident and had a claim with the previous Cholamandalam Insurance Company. After verification of the records submitted by the opposite party, he observed that the complainant herein concealed the fact that the vehicle met with an accident while the policy with the 3^rd opposite party herein was in force but furnished wrong information and got benefit of NCB from the opposite parties 1 and 2 herein which is nothing but clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy issued to the complainant. As the policy will be issued with utmost good faith basing on information furnished by the insured while availing the policy, in the present case the complainant concealed the material facts about previous claim with opposite party No.3, they have repudiated the claim as material facts suppressed after duly following the procedure incorporated by IRDA while settling the claim and the same was duly intimated to the complainant by way of letter dt: 15.07.2015 under Ex:B10. Hence the allegation that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is baseless and invented by the complainant to gain wrongfully. Hence it is contended that there is no deficiency in service and prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint  against them.

                   12. The counsel for the opposite party No.3 stated that, the complainant took a policy with their company with policy No.3779/01/210870/000/00 vide cover note number 57360652 for the  period from 07.07.2015 to 06.07.2016 and subsequently he has not renewed his policy with them and the counsel for the opposite party further stated that by the date of the accident there is no contract of insurance between the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant and hence the opposite party No.3 has nothing to do with the alleged claim submitted by the complainant as they are unnecessarily added as a party, even though there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant and hence the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of opposite party No.3. The counsel for the opposite party No.3 stated that in the complaint, the complainant himself clearly stated that they have added the 3^rd opposite party as formal party and no relief was claimed against them. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them on this ground alone as they are no way connected  with the alleged claim as there is no privity of contract on the date of accident.

                   13.  After perusing the evidence filed by both the parties there is no dispute regarding the policy taken by the complainant from the opposite parties 1 and 2 and also there is no dispute that the vehicle of the complainant met with a fire accident. The main contention of the complainant is that he submitted his claim to the opposite parties 1 and 2 for repairing of his vehicle which was damaged on 25.06.2017 and the said claim was returned by the opposite parties 1 & 2 on 15.07.2017 by unjustly repudiating the claim stating that complainant failed to disclose the material facts while taking the policy that he had already submitted claim with the previous insurance company i.e. Cholamandalam M/s.General Insurance Company Limited., i.e. opposite party No.3 and got benefit of no claim bonus, which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the them. But the counsel for the opposite parties stated that, after receiving the intimation from the complainant they have appointed spot surveyor and the spot surveyor filed his survey report under Ex:B4 and also they have appointed final surveyor and the final surveyor also filed his report by estimating the repairs to the tune of Rs.67,500/-. The counsel for the opposite party No.2 stated that, they have appointed one investigator to investigate the claim of the complainant. The investigator filed the report dt: 06.08.2017 and in the said investigation report, the investigator clearly stated that the above said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident when the vehicle was previously insured with Cholamandalam M/s.General Insurance Company Limited vide policy No. 3779/01/210870/000/00 during that period there was a third party claim of the complainant, as his vehicle was met with an accident. Hence they repudiated the claim that the complainant concealed the said facts with them at the time of taking the policy with the opposite party 1 and 2. But to prove their contention they have not filed any document to support their case. In the present case, the complainant also added cholamandalam insurance company as a third opposite party. Nowhere in their written version and evidence affidavit, they admitted that the complainant submitted the claim with them. The policy issued basing on declaration made by the complainant. However this does not mean that the complainant had suppressed any claims made earlier, in order to get benefit of NCB. But in the present case the complainant mentioned the particulars of previous insurance policy i.e. Ex:A3, Ex:B2 in the subsequent policy with the opposite parties 1&2.  It is the duty of the opposite parties 1&2 to cross check such information with the previous insurance company. If at all there is any claim earlier, they can recover the discount which was claimed by the complainant in the premium wrongfully. But there is no right to reject the whole claim. In the present case also the complainant in order to prove his bonafides, gave the particulars of the previous policy to the opposite party no 1&2 while taking the policy and also added them as a part in the present case.

                  Hence without any documentary proof we cannot come to the conclusion that the complainant has availed claim  earlier with the opposite party No.3. If at all the allegations made by opposite parties 1&2 are true, the burden lies on them to prove the same. But they failed to prove the same. Hence the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 cannot be considered.  Hence we are of the opinion that there is clear deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 towards the complainant.

      14. In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1and 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.67,500/- (Rupees sixty seven thousand and five hundred only)as assessed by the surveyor under Ex:B5 along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of repudiation letter dt: 15.07.2017 under Ex:A6. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the above said compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)  shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. The complaint against opposite party No.3 is hereby dismissed.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 22^nd day of August, 2019.

            Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-                                                                        

    Lady Member                                                                                                 President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri E. Gopinadha Reddy (Evidence affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy (Chief affidavit filed).

RW-2: Sri Anandhan (Chief affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Self attested photo copy of CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION (Form-23) (Vehicle No:AP03Y6138,  Goods Carriage –LMV) issued by Addl. Registering Authority, Transport Department, Tirupati. Date of Registration: 04.08.2010.
	Self attested photo copy of MOTOR POLICY SCHEDULE CUM CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE (Period of Insurance from 07.07.2015 17:30 hours to midnight on 06.07.2016).
	Original copy of CERTIFICATE CUM POLICY SCHEDULE (Policy No: 417053/31/17/002070 and Period of Insurance from 15:03 on 29.07.2016 to Midnight of 28.07.2017) issued by SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Tirupati.
	Self attested photo copy of DAMAGE CERTIFICATE issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandalur. P.S. Dt: 03.07.2017.
	Self attested photo copy of NewsPaper cutting, Dt: 26.06.2017.
	Photo copy of Letter of Repudiation issued by the Opposite Party. Dt: 15.07.2017.
	Self attested photo copy of ESTIMATION FOR ACCIDENTAL REPAIRS issued by VARA LAKSHMI AUTO MOBILES (P) LTD, TATA VEHICLE DEALER, TIRUPATHI. Dt; 01.07.2017.
	Stamped Receipt. Dt: 08.09.2017.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 18.09.2017.
	Ack. Card from Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 21.09.2017.
	Ack. Card from Opposite Party No.2. Dt: 19.09.2017.
	Ack. Card from Opposite Party No.3. Dt: 22.09.2017.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Proposal Form submitted by Applicant herein to the 2nd Respondent Company. Dt: 25.07.2016.
	Photo copy of CERTIFICATE CUM POLICY SCHEDULE (Policy No: 417053/31/17/002070 and Period of Insurance from 15:03 on 29.07.2016 to Midnight of 28.07.2017) issued by SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Tirupati.
	Photo copy of CLAIM INTIMATION SLIP submitted by Applicant herein to the 1st Opposite Party. Dt: 25.06.2017.
	Photo copy of SPOT SURVEY REPORT pertaining to Applicant Vehicle Conducted by Surveyor of 1st Opposite Party. Survey Dt: 26.06.2017
	Photo copy of FINAL SURVEY REPORT pertaining to Applicant Vehicle conducted by Surveyor of 1st Opposite Party. Survey Date: 05.07.2017.
	Photo copy of the ESTIMATION FOR ACCIDENTAL REPAIRS issued by VARA LAKSHMI AUTO MOBILES (P) LTD, TATA VEHICLE DEALER, TIRUPATHI. Dt: 01.07.2017.
	Photo copy of INVESTIGATION REPORT pertaining to Applicant’s Vehicle issued by U. Chitra Shenoy(Investigator), West Marredpally, Secunderabad  submitted to 1st Opposite Party. Dt: 06.08.2017.
	Photo copy of  MOTOR INSURANCE CLAIM FORM submitted by the Applicant to the 1st Opposite Party. Dt: 27.06.2017.
	Photo copy of the Letter addressed to applicant herein with postal receipt by the opposite party No.1 and 2. Dt: 27.06.2017.
	Photo copy of Letter of Repudiation addressed to applicant by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 with postal receipt. Dt: 15.07.2017.

 

 

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                                         President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

         Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 to 3.