Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/93/2016

B.Jagadish, S/o. Late B. Kannama Raju, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

K.Vijayarama Raju

31 Jan 2018

ORDER

Filing Date: 03.10.2016

Order Date:31.01.2018

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.93/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

B.Jagadish,

S/o. late. B.Kannama Raju,

Hindu, aged about 42 years,

D.No.6-10-347, Singalagunta,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh.                                                                               … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Branch Office,

No.3-3-392/A1, 3^rd Floor, GRR Complex,

Opp. to Premananda Hospital,

Tilak Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh.                                                                               …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 24.01.18 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.Vijayarama Raju, counsel for complainant, and Sri. Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to indemnify the complainant for total loss of the car by replacing with a new one of the same model or alternatively to pay the on road value of Rs.11,08,282/- of the same model car with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental torture, pain and agony, 3) to direct the opposite party to pay the complainant monthly EMIs being paid by the complainant to Bank of India, Balaji Colony Branch, Tirupati, along with interest and associated car loan costs of Rs.50,000/- from the date of accident till payment and Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation, 4) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,50,000/- spent by the complainant towards taxi charges, Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the legal notice, and to pass such other orders or further reliefs, as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.    

            2. The brief averments of the complaint are:- That the complainant purchased Ford Ecosport Car bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700 for Rs.9,89,532/- in Raja Shriram Ford, Tirupati, and took delivery of the vehicle on 07.11.2014. He also paid Rs.1,18,750/- as life tax for the car. He insured the car with opposite party insurance company, Tirupati branch, with policy No.OG-15-1808-1801-00001181 for the period from 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2015, and opposite party also collected premium amount of Rs.31,137/-. The car IDV is Rs.9,40,055/-.

            3.  The complainant further submitted that on 05.04.2015 at about 3 p.m., while the complainant, his relative L.Srinivasulu Raju and his friend K.Murali, were travelling in the car, met with an accident near 7/8 k.m. stone, at Theendragunta bridge of Renigunta mandal on Kodur – Renigunta main road. One B.Madhan, who is having valid driving licence, was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. As a result of the accident, K.Murali and L.Srinivasulu Raju, who were sitting in the back seat of the car sustained serious head injuries, whereas the complainant and the driver of the car, who were sitting in the front seat escaped with minor injuries, as they were wearing seat belts and six air bags of the car were also opened due to impact. The driver of the car B.Madhan escaped unhurt and the complainant also escaped with simple injuries.

            4.  After the accident, the matter was reported to S.H.O. Renigunta Urban Police Station, on which a case in Crime No.62/2015 was registered under Section-337 and 279 IPC, investigated into and filed charge-sheet under Sections-338 and 279 IPC and also under Section-134(a) and (b) read with Section-187 of M.V.Act against the driver B.Madhan, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.26/2016 on the file of    V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Due to the accident the car was badly damaged to a total loss condition.

            5.  That the accident was duly informed to opposite party on 05.04.2015 itself over phone, as that day happens to be Sunday, opposite party did not responded, but subsequently appointed its surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage to Rs.14,17,450/-.

            6.  That immediately after the accident L.Srinivasulu Raju shifted to               Sri Ramadevi Multi Specialty Hospital, Tirupati. On 06.04.2015 he was shifted to SVIMS, Tirupati, and on 07.04.2015 he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, for better treatment and took treatment as inpatient. K.Murali was shifted to SVIMS, Tirupati on 05.04.2015 and on 06.04.2015 he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai, and took treatment as inpatient.

7.  Immediately after the accident complainant was shifted to SVIMS, Tirupati on 05.04.2015. Then the complainant got admitted L.Srinivasulu Raju in SVIMS on 06.04.2015, and on the same day night L.Srinivasulu Raju was shifted to Bangalore by the complainant at 04-02 a.m., and on 07.04.2015 L.Srinivasulu Raju was admitted in Fortis Hospital, Bangalore. The complainant also took treatment in Fortis Hospital, Bangalore on 08.04.2015.

8.  As L.Srinivasulu Raju is the co-brother of complainant, he was attending on him. Hence, B.Sujatha, wife of the complainant, lodged complaint before Renigunta  Urban Police Station on 07.04.2015, and a case was registered against B.Madhan, and charge-sheet was also filed against B.Madhan, who got valid driving licence bearing No.AP10320140000301 issued by RTA, Tirupati on 03.02.2014 and it is valid upto 02.02.2034. As the complainant also sustained injuries, his co-brother and friend, who were sustained grievous injuries in the accident and were struggling for life, complainant unable to contact the insurance company (opposite party) officials directly, immediately after the accident, and he could not lodged complaint immediately after the accident. Hence, there was delay in lodging the complaint, as the complainant gave priority for the survival of the injured. The delay is not willful.

9.  That the complainant raised loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in Bank of India, Tirupati Branch, for purchase of the car, and the car was also hypothecated to Bank of India, and he is paying the EMI regularly. That the opposite party is creating false versions to avoid its liability by stating that B.Madhan is not the driver of the car at the time of accident and the blood stains on the steering were not tallied with the blood sample of the driver. That the opposite party unnecessarily delayed to provide new car in the place of damaged car. The opposite party issued false notices with an intention to evade its liability and adopted unfair trade practice in paying compensation and accident claim. The opposite party has to indemnify the total loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant has engaged taxi twice a week to attend his business works by spending more than Rs.1,50,000/- towards taxi fare. When the complainant approached the opposite party for the payment of insurance sum assured, the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that there is a delay of 3 days in reporting the matter to opposite party and not given an opportunity to the opposite party to examine the vehicle on the spot, as against the report of its surveyor, who inspected the car and assessed the damages. That the surveyor of the opposite party stated that the front portion of the car including the driver seat were badly damaged and there is every possibility of driver getting injured. The investigation report projected the driver and the blood stains on the steering are not concurrent and as per the information gathered that the driver at the time of material time accident is one Mr.Murali and asked to provide driving licence of Mr.Murali. The complainant gave suitable reply answering all the queries raised by the opposite party.

10.  As the opposite party did not settle the claim on false grounds, the complainant gave legal notice to opposite party on 04.09.2015 demanding to pay the entire amount in respect of damage of the car. Inspite of it the opposite party addressed a letter to the complainant on 22.12.2015 intimating that the claim of the complainant is repudiated. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has suffered loss in addition to mental agony and inconvenience. The claim made by the complainant towards settlement of insurance claim agreed under the policy was not settled, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

11.  The opposite party filed its written version. Paragraphs 6 to 21 of the written  version are the general denial of paras 3 to 20 of the complaint. The opposite party further contended that the complainant intimated the opposite party on 08.04.2015, that the complainant’s Ford Ecosport Car bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700 was met with an accident on 05.04.2015 at about 3 p.m. at a bridge near Anjaneyapuram village on Renigunta-Kodur road, while the driver of the vehicle steered it to avoid a major accident by observing the vehicle coming opposite to him. That the complainant insured his vehicle referred to above with the opposite party under the insurance policy No.OG-15-1808-1801-00001181 as Private Car Package Policy for one year from 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2015. In the accident, the inmates of the car sustained bleeding injuries and the vehicle was badly damaged. Intimation was given after lapse of 3 days after the accident. That the inmates were shifted to SVIMS hospital, Tirupati, by 108 ambulance. That the wife of the complainant lodged complaint with S.H.O. Renigunta Urban Police Station on 07.04.2015 i.e. after lapse of 48 hours after the accident and a case in Crime No.62/2015 was registered and investigated into.

12.  After receiving intimation about the accident, opposite party has deputed a surveyor to take up spot survey and to submit his report. Accordingly, the surveyor visited the accident spot and show room and assessed the loss and estimated the damages of the vehicle and submitted his report on 27.04.2015, as total loss. As there was delay in lodging complaint before the police and also there was delay in intimation to opposite party about the accident and as there were discrepancies in the versions of the inmates, the opposite party decided to conduct investigation with regard to genuineness of the alleged accident and entrusted the said case to one      M/s. Inquisitive Solutions India Private Limited, Hyderabad, to investigate into the alleged accident. The said independent investigator after conducting the investigation submitted their report stating that the driver on the date of accident is not one who projected by the insured.

13. That after thorough investigation, the investigation team came to conclusion that front portion of the vehicle was badly damaged, more particularly the driver seat was worstly damaged and there is no chance of escaping the driver unhurt. They have also observed that the air bags, which were opened in front side drenched with blood stains and in the course of investigation they have collected the blood stains on the air bags and obtained the blood samples of the insured and the alleged driver by name B.Madhan and compared the same and found that the said blood stains collected from the driving seat air bags are not matching with the blood samples of either of the insured / complainant or B.Madhan, who was projected as driver at the time of accident, but the said blood stains were matching with the blood samples of K.Murali, who was one of the inmates of the vehicle, who suffered with major injuries of both lower limbs and upper limbs, diagnosed as bilateral weakness and loss of sensation in both lower limbs and weakness of both upper limbs with pain in neck and who was treated for “TRAUMATIC DISLOCATION OF C5, C6 LEVEL WITH QUADRIPLEGIA” by the Department of Orthopedics of Apollo Hospitals, Chennai.

14.  That after receiving the reports of surveyor and investigator, the opposite party sent a letter dt:28.07.2015 to the insured stating that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy condition No.1, by intimating about the alleged accident, 3 days after the accident and that the insured has not given an opportunity to conduct spot survey. That the front portion of the vehicle was totally damaged, hence there is every possibility that the driver getting injuries. As per the investigation report the blood stains are not matching with the blood samples of the alleged driver, and K.Murali is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, and directed the insured to provide the driving licence of K.Murali and also driving licence of the projected driver B.Madhan, to process his claim. Inspite of it, the insured did not submit the documents and did not give reply for the queries raised by the opposite party. That the opposite party once again sent letter dt:18.08.2015 and also on 25.08.2015 requesting him to comply with the queries, but the complainant did not give any valid and good reasons for the queries, but sent a registered legal notice on 04.09.2015denying the queries. Hence the opposite party sent letter on 03.09.2015 and also on 22.12.2015 stating that the complainant did not evince any interest to satisfy the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party is forced to close the claim submitted by the insured. That as per the information of their investigators, one K.Murali is the driver on wheels and he sustained multiple injuries to both his lower and upper limbs, to his back bone and he underwent treatment in SVIMS, Tirupati and also underwent surgery at Apollo hospital, Chennai, and further took treatment in Elite hospitals, Tirupati. That K.Murali ought not to have sustain such grievous injuries if he sat in the back seat of the car.

15.  That as per the written complaint given by the wife of the insured / complainant on 07.04.2015, the complainant was taking treatment in Fortis hospital, Bangalore, and hence she is giving complaint. But, as per the medical records complainant visited Fortis hospital, Bangalore, only on 08.04.2015 as out-patient, and the said medical record is generated only to cover the latches, even though he took treatment in SVIMS, Tirupati, on 05.04.2015. Therefore, question of taking treatment by the insured / complainant at Bangalore, is to cover-up the delay in lodging the complaint with the S.H.O, Renigunta Urban Police Station, to suit his claim. As per the complaint, claim application and claim form, one B.Madhan is shown as driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, but as per the investigation report filed by the investigators of opposite party, the said Madhan is none other than the son of elder brother of the complainant.

16.  That the opposite party after receiving the accident intimation on 08.04.2015, immediately they have conducted survey and investigation of the alleged accident with regard to genuineness of the accident, and immediately after receipt of the reports, opposite party directed the insured by way of letters dt:28.07.2015, 18.08.2015 and 25.08.2015, to produce necessary documents and to give valid reasons for the queries raised by the opposite party. Inspite of giving satisfactory reply, the complainant issued registered legal notice dt:04.09.2015 confirming the versions in the claim form. As there is no proper documentary proof for the queries raised by the opposite party, it was forced to repudiate the claim of the complainant / insured and intimated the same to the insured on 22.12.2015 and also on 03.09.2015. Hence, there is no delay in processing the claim of the insured. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and repudiation is proper and there is no cause of action for filing the complaint. That the complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hands. This case involves intricate questions of facts and law, which requires voluminous evidence, chief and cross examination of witness, which is not possible in this Forum before which only summary procedure is to be followed.

17.  That the opposite party further contended at Para.36 of the written version that without prejudice to the defense of the opposite party, it submitted that its liability will not be more than the vehicle IDV of Rs.9,40,055/- which is admissible as per the terms and conditions of the policy, and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.            

18.  On behalf of the complainant evidence affidavit of P.W. 1 to 4 are filed and got marked Exs.A1 to A20. For the opposite party evidence affidavit of R.W.1     to 3 are filed and got marked Exs.B1 to B11. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.    

19.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether B.Madhan or K.Murali is the driver of the vehicle bearing

       No.AP-03-BM-5700 at the time of the accident?             

(ii). Whether there is scope for escaping the driver unhurt when the persons in

       the rear side suffered grievous injuries in the accident?

(iii). Whether the delay in accident intimation is fatal?

(iv). Whether the repudiation order passed by the opposite party is justified?

(v).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

(vi).  To what relief?

20.Point Nos.(i) and (ii):-  to answer this point, it is pertinent to state that the burden is on the complainant to establish that B.Madhan is the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700 at the time of the accident. In order to prove this aspect, the complainant relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A11, A12, A13 and A14. P.W.1 is B.Jagadish, the complainant herein. In his evidence affidavit deposed that B.Madhan is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, and P.W.2 B.Madhan also filed his affidavit stating that he is the driver at the time of accident. Other two witnesses, who were injured in the same accident also gave evidence affidavit as P.W.3 and P.W.4, they are L.Srinivasulu Raju and K.Murali. They relied on Ex.A11 FIR, Ex.A12 charge-sheet, Ex.A13 Form-54 and Ex.A14 driving licence of B.Madhan. P.W.1 in his evidence affidavit deposed that on 05.04.2015 himself, his co-brother L.Srinivasulu Raju (P.W.3), his friend K.Murali (P.W.4) are travelling as inmates of the Ford Ecosport Car bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700. B.Madhan (P.W.2), who is having valid driving licence is driving the car towards Kodur side, while so at about 3 p.m. on 05.04.2015 near 7/8 k.m. stone, at Theendragunta bridge of Renigunta mandal, on Kodur – Renigunta main road, to avert the accident from the vehicle coming in opposite direction, the driver (B.Madhan) took side and lost control and rammed into deep pit situated on the left side of the road and the vehicle turned turtle, as a result of which, K.Murali and L.Srinivasulu Raju, who were sitting in the back seat of the car, sustained serious head injuries, and the complainant as well as the driver B.Madhan,  sitting in front side escaped with minor injuries, as they were wearing seat belts and as all the six air bags were opened due to the impact.

21.  P.W.2-B.Madhan deposed in his evidence affidavit specifically that he is the driver of the Ford Ecosport Car bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700 at the time of accident. He is having valid driving licence issued by competent authority, which was marked as Ex.A14, and it is valid up to 02.02.2034. He further deposed that while the car is proceeding towards Kodur side, he is driving the car and in order to avert the accident from the vehicle coming opposite side, he took side and lost control over the car and the car rammed into a deep pit situated on the left side of the road and turned turtle, as a result of which, himself and complainant sitting in front side wearing seat belts escaped with minor injuries, whereas L.Srinivasulu Raju - P.W.3 and K.Murali- P.W.4, who were sitting in back seat sustained head injuries and bleeding injuries. P.W.3 was sitting in the left rear side and P.W.4 on the right rear seat. P.W.2 did not sustained any bleeding injuries. P.W.2 and complainant were wearing seat belts and all the air bags were opened due to the impact. Police registered a case in Crime No.62/2015 against P.W.2, inquired into and charge-sheet also lodged against P.W.2.

22.  P.W.3-L.Srinivasulu Raju, is one of the injured and eye witness to the accident. He also stood as eye witness in the charge-sheet in Crime No.62/2015. L.Srinivasulu Raju sustained serious injuries in the accident. He was sitting in left side back seat of the car at the time of accident. B.Madhan-P.W.2 was driving the car at the time of accident. Himself and K.Murali were sitting in the back seat of the car at the time of accident. That K.Murali also sustained serious head injuries. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were escaped with minor injuries, as they were wearing seat belts.

23.  P.W.4-K.Murali, who was also one of the injured in the accident and eye witness to the accident deposed that himself and P.W.3-L.Srinivasulu Raju, and P.W.1-complainant were travelling in the vehicle as inmates and P.W.2-B.Madhan was driving the car bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700 at the time of accident. Himself and P.W.3 were sitting in the back seat, whereas P.W.1 and the driver were in front seat. P.W.1 and the driver were wearing seat belts and all the air bags were opened due to the impact, as such they escaped with minor injuries, whereas himself and P.W.3 sustained grievous head injuries in the accident.

24.  In support of their oral evidence, they relied on Ex.A11-FIR in which B.Madhan was shown as the driver of the vehicle on the basis of the complaint given by the wife of P.W.1 B.Sujatha. A case in Crime No.62/2015 was registered in Renigunta (U) Police Station under Section-337, 279 IPC on 07.04.2015. They also relied on Ex.A12 charge-sheet filed in Crime No.62/2015 under Section-338 and 279 IPC and under Section-134(a)(b) r/w Section-187 of M.V.Act.  B.Madhan was the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP-03-BM-5700 at the time of accident and that B.Madhan was charge-sheeted showing him as accused. As per Ex.A12 charge sheet B.Jagadeesh, the complainant herein is the owner of the crime vehicle and he has sustained dumb injuries in the accident. He produced the accused before the police along with the copies of records of crime vehicle. L.Srinivasulu Raju (L.W.4) and K.Murali (L.W.5), who were also injured travelling in the crime vehicle along with L.W.3 B.Jagadeesh and the accused driver B.Madhan at the time of occurrence of offence. That on 05.04.2015 at about 3 p.m. near 60 feet from 7/8 k.m. stone, at Theendragunta bridge, on Kodur – Renigunta main road, Renigunta mandal, the accused B.Madhan being the driver of Ford Ecosport car bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700 drove the car in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding towards Kodur side and while taking side from the opposite coming vehicle, he lost control over the vehicle and rammed into deep pit, situated in the left side of the road and turned turtle. As a result, the inmates of the car i.e. B.Jagadeesh (L.W.3), L.Srinivasulu Raju (L.W.4) and K.Murali (L.W.5) sustained severe bleeding injuries on their persons and also car was badly damaged. Then the travelers were called 108 ambulance and shifted to Ramadevi hospital, Tirupati, for better treatment. The injured persons B.Jagadeesh (L.W.3) and L.Srinivasulu Raju (L.W.4) were individually shifted to Fortis hospital, Bangalore, for better treatment, while the other injured K.Murali (L.W.5) was shifted to Apollo hospital, Chennai. The driver of the car namely B.Madhan sustained no injuries, while the car bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700 got badly damaged. On 07.04.2015, the complainant Smt.B.Sujatha (L.W.1) came to police station and preferred written complaint for taking necessary action. They also relied on Ex.A13 Form-54 (Accident Information Report) in which details of accident, crime vehicle details, injured persons details, details of the driver and his driving licence number etc. were specifically mentioned. Ex.A14 is the driving licence of B.Madhan (P.W.2), who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, according to which the driving licence was issued on 03.02.2014 and it is valid upto 02.02.2034. So, by virtue of evidence of P.W.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A11 to A14, it was proved that B.Madhan (P.W.2) is the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700 at the time of the accident.

25.  Contrary to it, the opposite party though pleaded that K.Murali is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident but not B.Madhan, did not file any evidence to prove that K.Murali is the driver of the vehicle. They examined R.W.1     to 3. R.W.1 is D.A.S.Naidu, Senior Executive of opposite party office at Hyderabad, resident of Hyderabad. R.W.2 is Dr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Forensic Expert, M/s. SIFS India Forensic Science Organisation, New Delhi, and R.W.3 Balaji Gawalkar, Senior Executive, Investigation and Loss Mitigation, M/s. Bajaj Allaianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad, who is also residing at Hyderabad. So, R.W.1 to 3 are not eye witness to the occurrence and not the persons who inspected the vehicle, either at the spot or at the show room, or the injured at any point of time after the accident. So, how far their evidence supports the version of opposite party. In his evidence R.W.1 (D.A.S.Naidu) deposed that this case involves intricate questions of facts and law, which require voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary for proper adjudication of the case. It is not possible in summary procedure. Hence, complaint is to be returned to the competent Court. However, he spoke about the terms and conditions of the policy and obligations of the parties thereto. He reiterated the contents of the written version and further deposed that the wife of the complainant lodged complaint before the S.H.O., Renigunta Urban Police Station on 07.04.2015 i.e. after lapse of 48 hours. That the opposite party immediately after receiving accident intimation on 08.04.2015 deputed a surveyor, who inspected the accident spot and showroom and assessed the loss and estimated the damage of the vehicle and filed his report on 27.04.2015, as total loss. As there are some discrepancies in the versions of the inmates of the car, the opposite party decided to conduct investigation with regard to genuineness of the accident. Accordingly, the case is entrusted to M/s. Inquisitive Solutions India Private Limited, Hyderabad, who investigated the case and submitted the report.  The investigation team after thorough investigation came to conclusion that the front portion of the vehicle was badly damaged, more particularly the driver seat was damaged worstly and there is no chance of escaping the driver unhurt. That they also observed that air bags opened in front side drenched with blood stains. In the course of investigation they have collected the blood stains on the air bags and obtained blood samples of injured complainant and the alleged driver B.Madhan, compared the same and found that the blood stains collected from the driver seat and air bags are not matching with the blood samples of either complainant or the driver, but matching with the blood samples of K.Murali, who was one of the inmate of the said vehicle and who suffered with major injuries to both lower limbs and also both upper limbs diagnosed as “bilateral weakness and loss of sensation in both lower limbs and weakness of both upper limbs with pain in the neck, and who was treated for “Traumatic Dislocation of C5, C6 level with Quadriplegia” by the Department of Orthopedics, Apollo hospitals, Chennai. Therefore, the opposite party asked the complainant to produce the driving licence of K.Murali, but P.W.1 (complainant) though received the said notice, did not produce the driving licence of K.Murali. As per their investigation, K.Murali was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, as such he sustained grievous injuries to his limbs.

26. In this regard, we have to state that when the inmates of the car at the time accident, those who were injured, and also the driver specifically contending and gave evidence to the effect that B.Madhan is the driver of the vehicle, K.Murali and L.Srinivasulu Raju, who were sitting in the back seat of the car sustained grievous and bleeding injuries, asking the complainant to produce the driving licence of K.Murali is meaningless, when he is not the driver of the vehicle, how the opposite party insisted for the driving licence of K.Murali. Apart from it, the opposite party did not mention anywhere in the written version, as to who was actually investigated the case, and affidavit of those persons, who were said to be investigators also not filed in support of the case of the opposite party. The opposite party did not file the photographs of driver seat air bags or steering on which blood stains were drenched. As per the photographs under Ex.A20, it is evident that front portion of the car was not crushed though damaged. There is considerable gap between the steering and the driving seat, which shows that the driver seat was not so badly damaged, as contended by the opposite party. Therefore, except suspicion of the opposite party, there is no evidence that K.Murali was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, as against the evidence of P.W.1 to 4, who were eye witnesses and also injured in the accident, and when the documentary evidence under Exs.A11 to A14 shows that B.Madhan is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, and the police investigation also shows that B.Madhan was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, there is no other iota of evidence contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A11 to A14.

27.  Coming to the evidence of R.W.2 Dr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Forensic Expert, who is residing at New Delhi, filed his evidence affidavit deposing that he is working in M/s. SIFS India Forensic Science Organization, New Delhi, that he is giving evidence on the basis of records to the effect that he received blood stains from the vehicle for blood group test and also for DNA examination to detect the presence of human blood and to determine the blood group of the samples collected from the vehicle. That they have been assigned to find out (1) whether the samples received by us is blood? (2) is the blood of human origin? (3) Either both the samples is matching with each other or not? Ex.X1 is the blood stains collected from front steering balloon, Ex.X2 is the blood stains collected from front seat rear passenger balloon and Ex.X3 driver blood sample i.e. blood from the driver. After test, they found that the blood samples which were marked as Exs. X2 and X3 are B+ve group, and the blood sample marked as Ex.X1 is O+ve group. They have also conducted DNA test of the blood samples by marking Ex.X1 is blood samples collected from driver seat. Ex.X2 blood samples collected from behind driver seat. Ex.X3 is the driver blood sample, and after DNA tests, they found that the blood samples of DNA in Exs.X2 and X3 are matching and Ex.X1 DNA are not matching with the DNA of Exs.X2 and X3 and DNA of Exs.X2 and X3 are similar with each other. That as per scientific investigation, the blood samples collected from driver seat balloon, is not matching with the blood samples collected from driver rear seat balloon and from the driver. Exs.B10 and B11 are the forensic reports filed by R.W.2.

28.  It is observed that X-1 is the blood stains collected from front steering balloon, X-2 is the blood stains collected from front seat rear passenger balloon that means it belongs to rear passenger, in detail it may belongs to P.W.3 L.Srininvasulu Raju or P.W.4 K.Murali. X-3 is the blood sample collected from the driver. That apart here it was specifically mentioned by R.W.2 that the blood samples which were marked as X-2 and X-3 are B+ve group, and the blood sample marked as Ex.X1 is O+ve group. Exs.B10 and B11 are the forensic reports. Ex.B10 shows that the forensic organization received the blood samples on 09.05.2015 i.e. exactly after one month of the accident. The report at page.5 shows as follows:– Result – Blood Group present in two exhibits from vehicle marked as Ex-1 (Driver Seat: Front Steering Balloon) is O+ve and Ex-2 (Behind Driver Seat: Front Seat Rear Passenger Balloon) is A+ve while the Blood Group Report by Front Line Health Lab (Ex-1 Driver) is A+ve. In the evidence of R.W.2, it is stated that blood groups are B+ve group and O+ve group. In his report it shows that O+ and A+ve. When the driver himself and complainant as well as P.W.3 and P.W.4 specifically deposed in their evidence that driver did not sustain any bleeding injuries and escaped with simple injuries, how the opposite party can expect the blood stains collected from steering and air bags will match with the blood samples of the driver? The result of the report under Ex.B10 is contrary to the evidence of R.W.2, so far as blood groups are concerned. As per Ex.B11 the DNA present in exhibits from vehicle marked as Ex-1 does not belong to DNA of X-2 and X-3. X-2 and X-3 show similarity with each other.    

29.  Now it is pertinent to have a brief discussion in respect of functioning of seat belts and air bags. Seat Belts:-  A seat belt functions to reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury in a traffic collision by reducing the force of secondary impacts with interior strike hazards, by keeping occupants positioned correctly for maximum effectiveness of the airbag (if equipped) and by preventing occupants being ejected from the vehicle in a crash or if the vehicle rolls over.  When in motion, the driver and passengers are travelling at the same speed as the car. If the car suddenly stops or crashes, the driver and passengers continue at the same speed the car was going before it stopped. A seatbelt applies an opposing force to the driver and passengers to prevent them from falling out or making contact with the interior of the car. Seatbelts are considered Primary Restraint Systems (PRS), because of their vital role in occupant safety. An analysis conducted in the United States in the year 1984 compared a variety of seat belt types alone and in combination with air bags. The range of fatality reduction for front seat passengers was broad, from 20% to 55%, as was the range of major injury, from 25% to 60%. Seat belts are designed to retain people in their seats, and so prevent or reduce injuries suffered in a crash. They ensure that as little contact is made between the occupant and vehicle interior as possible and significantly reduce the risk of being thrown from a vehicle. Seat belts are designed to work as the key part of wider injury prevention measures and safety systems, such as airbags and head restraints, which will not be as effective in reducing the risk of injury if an occupant is not wearing a seat belt. Air Bags:- Seat belts have proved to be very effective in reducing such casualties. However, in frontal collisions, car occupants are still injured by being thrown onto unpadded parts of the car interior such as the steering wheel and the dashboard. Therefore, in recent years, airbags have been introduced to provide further protection. However it must always be remembered that air bags are an addition rather than an alternative to seat belts. The study by Simon Barry et al makes it clear that seat belts are not only cheaper and less prone to negative effects than airbags. They are also more effective in frontal collisions and in a wide range of other crashes where an airbag is ineffective.

30. So, not only the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, but also the opposite party’s version is clear that complainant and driver i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were wearing seat belts at the time of accident. In view of the above discussion on the functioning of seat belts and air bags, certainly P.W.1 and P.W.2, ought to have been escaped unhurt, since the air bags were also opened. Ex.B3 investigation report and Ex.B4 provisional survey report, both did not contain the signatures of the investigator or the surveyor. Then here arose a doubt as to who conducted the investigation and who is the surveyor. Since Exs.B3 and B4 did not contain the signatures of the investigator and surveyor, they need not be considered. In view of the above discussion and in view of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 coupled with Exs.A11 to A14 and Exs.B10 and B11, the complainant has proved that P.W.2-B.Madhan is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, contrary to it the opposite party failed to establish that K.Murali was the driver at the time of accident. Accordingly these points are answered.   

31. Point No.(iii):- to answer this point, we have to state that delay in intimation about the accident to the insured company in some cases certainly a fatal, but in the case on hand, when the delay is properly explained by the insured, it can be considered as not fatal, because out of the 4 persons 2 persons were seriously injured and one of them sustained severe head injury with bleeding injuries. Consequently, the upper limbs and lower limbs of K.Murli, lost sensation and also suffered pain in neck and he was treated for “Traumatic Dislocation of C5, C6 level with Quadriplegia” by the Department of Orthopedics, Apollo hospitals, Chennai, admittedly. When one of the passengers was sustained grievous injuries and severe head injuries, the other persons travelling in the same car, though escaped unhurt, are not supposed to rush to the police station, leaving the injured to their fate at the place of accident. As a human being P.W.1 complainant herein took the injured immediately to the nearest hospital, Tirupati, later K.Murali was shifted to Apollo hospital, Chennai, and L.Srinivasulu Raju was shifted to Bangalore for better treatment. One of the injured was co-brother of the complainant. Under those circumstances, the delay was occurred in lodging the complaint before the police and also giving intimation to the insurance company - opposite party about the accident. As the complainant was accompanied the injured and also went to Fortis hospital, Bangalore,  for treatment for his minor injuries, his wife B.Sujatha lodged complaint on 07.04.2015; i.e. on the second day of the accident, which took place on 05.04.2015.

32.  In this regard, the learned counsel for complainant relied on a decision reported in 2017 SAR (Civil) 1149 SC. The facts of the case are in respect of theft of a truck bearing registration No.HR-21-F-0462, which was insured with respondent No.1 herein i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. w.e.f. 10.03.2010 to 09.03.2011. The said vehicle was stolen from Chopanki, Bhiwari, Rajasthan on 23.03.2010 at about 9 p.m. Consequently, an FIR was lodged on 24.03.2010, in police station Tapkura, District Alwar, Rajasthan, under Section-379 IPC. Thereafter, the appellant visited the office of the first respondent but the office was found to be closed. Then the appellant went to the place of theft and met the driver and then he went to the concerned police official. On 29.03.2010 the appellant along with the truck driver, went with the police officials for their assistance to search the vehicle. The appellant reached his village on 30.03.2010. On 31.10.2010, the appellant lodged the insurance claim with the respondent-company at Hissar and provided the necessary documents which were demanded by the respondent-company. Pursuant to the said claim, an investigator was appointed by the respondent-company, who, after verification, confirmed the factum of theft. Consequently, the Corporate Claims Manager approved an amount of Rs.7,85,000/- for the said claim of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant made several requests and demands to the respondent-company, inter alia, seeking speedy processing and disposal of his insurance claim. Finally, the appellant served a legal notice dt:09.08.2011 to the respondent-company. However, the respondent-company repudiated the insurance claim of the appellant citing breach of Condition No.1 i.e. immediate information about the loss / theft of the vehicle. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar, under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondent-company for payment of claim amount with an interest @ 18% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant. Written statement was filed by the respondents herein opposing the claim of the appellant. The District Forum by order dt:13.06.2013 dismissed the complaint of the appellant thereby holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The appellant filed an appeal challenging the said order of District Forum before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana, at Panchkula. The State Commission by an order dt:23.10.2013 dismissed the said appeal. This order was challenged by the appellant by way of Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This Revision Petition has been dismissed by the National Commission by an order dt:12.02.2014. The appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that it needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act. It is further held that in the instant case, the appellant has given cogent reasons for the delay of 8 days in informing the respondent about the incident. The investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and the payment of Rs.7,85,000/- towards the claim was approved by the Corporate Claims Manager, which, in our opinion, is just and proper. The National Commission, therefore, is not justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant without considering the explanation for the delay. We are also of the view that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, and their Lordships further held that, hence, the appeal is allowed and the orders of the National Commission, State Commission and the District Forum are set aside and the claim petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,35,000/- to the appellant with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The payment, as above, shall be made within a period of 8 weeks from today. While allowing the complaint their Lordships also observed that it is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the insurance company to claim compensation. At first he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims, which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when the delay in intimation or in submission of documents were properly explained and when the claim is genuine, such claims cannot be repudiated by the insurance company.

33.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party relied on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P.No.1356/2016 Simbhu Singh Shekhawat Vs. Cholamandalam MS. General Insurance Company Ltd. – this decision is in respect of theft of Maruti Alto Car. The facts of the case in brief are – the car was stolen on 29.12.2011. The FIR was lodged with the Police Station, Pilani on 30.12.2011 and simultaneously the insurance company was also informed telephonically. The complainant filed a claim before the opposite party, but it was rejected. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum-II, Jaipur. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing the written statement and contended that the theft of car took place on 29.12.2011, whereas the information was given to opposite party on 13.01.2012 at belated stage, and also FIR was registered after 4 days i.e. on 02.01.2012. Therefore, the terms of the policy had been violated. Accordingly, the claim was repudiated. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.2,30,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 06.06.2012. It also allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved, the opposite party filed fist appeal against the orders of the District Forum. The Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. Hence, the revision petition before the National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the revision petition holding that there was delay in filing the FIR as well as the intimation to the opposite party. Thus the repudiation of claim was legal. The learned counsel for opposite party also relied on another decision of the National Commission in R.P.No.631/2016 – Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pratap Singh – this decision is also in respect of theft of Tavera vehicle, bearing No.DL-4B 3741 of the respondent. The facts of the case are – the vehicle was stated to have been stolen on 02.04.2009 at about 1 p.m. near Sai Baba Mandir, Najafgarh, Delhi. The complainant reported the matter to the police at 3.15 on the same day on telephone No.100. However, the police registered FIR No.144 dt:06.05.2009 under Section-379 IPC at PS, Najafgarh, South West Delhi. A DDR No.28A dt:02.04.2009 was however, registered at the same police station. The complainant filed his claim with the opposite party insurance company, but the same was repudiated by them vide letter dt:25.03.2010. The complainant filed complaint against the insurance company with the Insurance Ombudsman, but the same was also dismissed holding that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim because the company was not informed about the theft of vehicle immediately. The company was informed about loss of the vehicle after 38 days of theft. The vehicle was not having a valid permit and fitness at the time of theft. Therefore, the claim stands rejected with sufficient reasons. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed on 20.05.2011. The complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, which dismissed the complaint holding that the FIR was lodged about one month after the theft, intimation to insurance company was also given after a delay of 38 days after the theft. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed appeal before the State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay Rs.4,30,000/- as IDV of the vehicle to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Being aggrieved, the opposite party filed the revision petition before the National Commission. On that National Commission allowed the revision petition setting aside the order of the State Commission and complaint is dismissed without costs. In this case, there was abnormal delay of 38 days in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company and also complaint was lodged about one month after the theft. Therefore, their Lordships National Commission held that repudiation is right and complaint was dismissed, as the said delay was not properly explained by the complainant. The facts of the above two decisions are different to that of the facts of the case on hand.               

34.  In the case on hand, the accident was occurred on 05.04.2015, in which admittedly two persons were seriously injured. The driver and the complainant, who sat in the front seat of the car, who buckled with seat belts, escaped with minor injuries, though the car rammed into a deep pit and the front portion of the car was badly damaged. Because of buckling of seat belts by the driver and P.W.1 complainant and due to opening of the air bags they were saved with simple injuries. It is not the case of the complainant and also the opposite party that L.Srinivasulu Raju and K.Murali, who were sat in the rear side of the car, were wearing seat belts at the time of accident. The consequences of non-wearing of seat belts were already explained supra, and the results by wearing the seat belts and opening of air bags during the accident were also explained. Under those circumstances, as two of the inmates of the car were seriously injured, as a human being, the complainant took them to hospital to save their lives, because of which the delay was occurred in lodging complaint and also delay was occurred in intimating the opposite party about the accident. That apart, the date of accident was happens to be Sunday. Immediately, after the accident, the complainant contacted the insurance company, but they could not lift the phone, as it happens to be Sunday. It shows that he made his efforts to intimate the opposite party about the accident immediately after the occurrence. The accident was occurred on 05.04.2015 at 3 p.m. Complaint was lodged by B.Sujatha, wife of complainant on 07.04.2015 before Renigunta Police Station. The intimation to the opposite party was admittedly given on 08.04.2015. In our view, the delay was properly explained by the complainant. Therefore, such delay shall not be fatal to the case of the complainant, and on the basis of said technical grounds, the opposite party ought not have rejected / repudiate the claim of the complainant. Other grounds that were taken by the opposite party for repudiating the claim of the complainant are         1) that B.Madhan is not the driver of the vehicle and one of the injured K.Murali is the driver of the car at the time of the accident, this plea was taken by the opposite party without there being any iota of evidence in support of their contest,                     2) Comparing the blood stains on steering, air bags on rear seat with the blood samples of non-injured (driver) and stating that blood stains are not matching with the blood samples of B.Madhan is apparently quite improper and un-sustainable, since this version is against the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant, 3) filing survey report and investigation report without disclosing the names of the alleged surveyor or the investigator anywhere though it is mandatory, and without signatures of the surveyor or the investigator on their respective reports prima facie shows that these reports were prepared by the opposite party only with an intention to avoid the claim. Since the surveyor report and investigator report under Exs.B4 and B3 respectively were not signed by the surveyor and investigator, genuineness of those reports are to be suspected, 4) opposite party also not disclosed the procedure adopted for collection of blood stains from the interior parts of the car i.e. blood stains from steering, blood stains from balloons (air bags) etc., details of the person, who collected those blood stains and blood samples from P.W.1 and P.W.2, when the blood samples are collected? and what is the procedure followed for preserving those blood samples for one month? as those blood samples were received by R.W.2 on 09.05.2015, where those blood samples were preserved? or retained till 09.05.2015 etc.? and 5) finding of R.W.2 expert is also not matching with his evidence with that of his report. In his evidence, R.W.2 Dr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh deposed that, after test they found that the blood samples which were marked as Exs.X2 and X3 are B+ve group, where as blood sample in Ex.X1 is O+ group, whereas Ex.B10 shows at result portion that blood group present in two exhibits from vehicle marked as Ex-1 (Driver seat: front steering balloon) is O+ve and Ex-2 (Behind Driver seat: front seat rear passenger balloon) is A+ve while the blood group report by Front Line Health Lab (Ex-1 Driver) is A+ve. When driver is A+ group, R.W.2 Expert did not speak anything about the blood group of A+. His evidence shown as B+ve, whereas Ex.B10 report shows as A+ve. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that complainant’s explanation for the delay is quite proper and reasonable, and such delay does not fatal to the case of the complainant. Accordingly this point is answered. 

35. Point No.(iv):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 SAR (Civil) 1149 referred to above, we have to state that opposite party passed the repudiation order on technical grounds without considering the explanation given by the complainant justifying the delay and also on other untenable grounds that driver is not one Madhan and that one Murali was the driver of the car and asking him to produce the driving licence, comparing the blood stains with blood samples of non-injured and filing investigator report and surveyor report without signatures of the investigator and the surveyor and also without disclosing the details of the person, who investigated the case and submitted his report under Ex.B3, and without disclosing the surveyor name and also without signature of the surveyor on the survey report under Ex.B4, basing on such reports and some baseless grounds, the opposite party has stooped down to repudiate the claim of the complainant, and therefore we are of the opinion that the repudiation is not justified. Accordingly, this point is answered.  

36. Point No.(v):- to answer this point, the complainant is contending that he is the owner of the Ford Ecosport Car bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700. He has insured the vehicle with the opposite party for IDV of Rs.9,40,055/-. The insurance policy is from 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2015. He is paying the premium regularly. The opposite party has admitted that complainant is the owner of the above said Ford Ecosport Car. That the policy was also in force as on the date of accident. That the insured has paid the premium etc. facts. Similarly the opposite party also admitted the accident on 05.04.2015, and in the accident the car was badly damaged, they also admitted that L.Srinivasulu Raju and K.Murali, who were travelling in the car received grievous injuries, such as bleeding head injuries, consequently, the upper limbs and lower limbs of K.Murali were suffered a lot. But their contest is B.Madhan-P.W.2 is not the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, and K.Murali who received grievous injuries was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, but no iota evidence is placed before the Forum in support of their case. As could be seen from the FIR under Ex.A11, Charge-Sheet under Ex.A12, Form-54 Accident Information Report under Ex.A13, B.Madhan P.W.2 is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The police have no need to implicate some other persons in the case leaving the accused driver. In this regard, the learned counsel for the complainant relied on a decision reported in 2015 ACJ 797 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh) K.Rajani and others Vs. M.Satyanarayana Goud and another – in which their Lordships held testimony of eye witness is not clear about the distance between offending vehicle and his vehicle but even if his version is unreliable the fact remains that police after investigation filed charge-sheet against driver of offending vehicle. Charge-Sheet shows that police recovered the driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle from the place of incident. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the driver and it is not possible that police would fabricate a case against person not involved in the accident. The opposite party not examined any witness / eye witness to the incident or placed any cogent material / documentary evidence in support of their contention. Their Lordships further held that content of charge-sheet and evidence of witnesses proves that offending vehicle was involved in the accident. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the vehicle Ford Ecosport Car bearing No.AP-03-BM-5700 met with an accident at about 3 p.m. on 05.04.2015. The oppose party has not disputed the charge-sheet and FIR and the investigation done by the police in this case in Crime No.62/2015. Simply they are denying that B.Madhan is not the driver. It appears that the opposite party is not at all interested in settling the claim of the complainant, but trying their level best to avoid the claim on the false and flimsy grounds as well as untenable grounds. The complainant has established that B.Madhan is the driver of the car at the time of accident, that because of buckling of seat belts and opening of air bags, the two persons i.e. the driver and the complainant, who sat in the front seat of the car were escaped with simple / minor injuries, whereas the other two persons L.Srinivasulu Raju and K.Murali, who were sitting in the rear seat of the car sustained grievous injuries. That the opposite party without considering his explanation and the documents submitted by the complainant for insurance claim, they repudiated the claim on technical grounds and on presumptions and assumptions.

37.  That the complainant also established that the documents relied on by the opposite party under Exs.B3, B4, B10 and B11 are not helpful to the case of the opposite party, and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for, so far as insurance claim is concerned i.e. IDV of the vehicle as shown in the insurance policy under Ex.B2. Though the surveyor said to have been appointed by the opposite party, assessed the value of damage under Ex.B4 for Rs.11,85,272/-, as it was not signed by the surveyor, it cannot be relied on. However, the complainant is entitled for the IDV of the vehicle in a sum of Rs.9,40,055/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of accident, till realization, and for compensation. The reliefs sought for by the complainant to direct the opposite party, to pay the complainant EMI being paid by the complainant to the Bank of India, Balaji Colony Branch, Tirupati, along with interest, and associated car loan costs of Rs.50,000/-, he also seeking relief of Rs.1,50,000/- spent by the complainant towards taxi charges, Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the legal notice. In this regard, we have to state that the complainant failed to prove that he has engaged a private taxi and spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards its charges. When he has engaged the taxi, and on what dates he has engaged the taxi and paid the charges, and at what rate he has paid the charges etc. were not furnished by the complainant. The opposite party need not to pay the EMI, which was paid by the complainant to the Bank of India, that too he has not furnished the quantum of EMI and how many installments he has paid and when they were paid etc., that is the personal liability of the complainant to pay the installments to Bank of India. Therefore, the complainant under the above circumstances entitled to the insurance claim of Rs.9,40,055/- towards the IDV from the opposite party. He is also entitled for the compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party having known pretty well about the accident and also having admitted that two inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries in the accident and they have taken treatment at Apollo hospital, Chennai and Fortis hospital, Bangalore, they are not interested in admitting the claim of the complainant. When the car is purchased, the insurance company will insist the purpose to insure the vehicle, later, whenever, the car met with an accident or stolen by somebody or gutted into fire, then they won’t show any sort of inclination / interest to pay the insured amount, they will make their best efforts to avoid the insurance claim, which is totally not only deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, but also unfair trade practice. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that the complainant is entitled for the reliefs referred to above. Accordingly, this point is answered.  

38.  Point No.(vi):-   in view of our discussion on points 1 to 5, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that his claim is genuine one, that his explanation offered for the delay in lodging FIR and giving intimation about the accident to the opposite party is also quite reasonable and justified. As the Consumer Protection Act, is a beneficial legislation, it should be liberally considered and the order of the opposite party repudiating the claim can be held as unjustified and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay the vehicle IDV of Rs.9,40,055/- (Rupees nine lakhs forty thousands and fifty five only) as shown in Private Car Package Policy Schedule in policy No.OG-15-1808-1801-00001181, which was accepted by the opposite party, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation through letter dt:03.09.2015, till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service on their part and for causing mental agony to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The remaining claim of the complainant is dismissed. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.            

 

 

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 31^st day of January, 2018.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                               

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:   B.Jagadish (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-2:   B.Madhan (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-3:  L.Srinivasulu Raju (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-4:  K. Murali  (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  D.A.S.Naidu (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2:  Dr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-3:  Balaji  Gawalkar(Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	True copy of Sale certificate in the name of the complainant for the Ford Ecosport Car bearing registration No. AP-03-BM-5700 issued by M/s. Raja Shriram Private Ltd., Tirupati. Dt: 07.11.2014.
	True copy of Temporary certificate of Registration (No: AP03URTR0583) in the name of the complainant for the Ford Ecosport Car bearing registration No: AP-03-BM-5700. Dt: 11.11.2014.
	Colour photo copy of Registration certificate in the name of the Complainant for the Ford Ecosport Car bearing registration No: AP-03-BM-5700 issued by the R.T.A., Tirupati. Dt: 26.12.2014.
	Customer True copy of Tax invoice in the name of the Complainant for the sum of Rs.9,89,532-00 issued by M/S. Raja Shriram Private Ltd., Tirupati filed on behalf of the Complainant. Dt: 04.11.2010.
	Original copy of insurance policy issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant for the Ford Ecosport Car bearing registration No: AP-03-BM-5700 with policy No:OG-15-1808-1801-00001181 and the insurance was valid from 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2015. Dt: 11.11.2014.
	Original copy of Letter addressed by the opposite party to the Complainant. Dt: 28.07.2015.
	Original copy of Letter addressed by the opposite party to the Complainant. Dt: 18.08.2015.
	Original copy of Letter addressed by the opposite party to the Complainant. Dt: 03.09.2015.
	Original copy of Letter addressed by the opposite party to the Complainant. Dt: 22.12.2014.
	Office copy of Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party along with two postal receipts and two acknowledgments. Dt: 04.09.2015.
	True certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.62 of 2015 of Renigunta Urban Police Station. Dt: 07.04.2015.
	True certified copy of Charge Sheet in Crime No.62 of 2015 of Renigunta Urban Police Station which was registered as C.C.No.26 of 2016 on the file of   V Additional Junior Civil Judge of Tirupati. Dt: 07.04.2015.
	True certified copy of Form-54-Accident information report in Crime No: 62 of 2015 of Renigunta Urban Police Station. Dt: 10.08.2015.
	Photo copy of Driving Licence of B. Madhan, son of B. Jayaram. Dt: 03.02.2014.
	Original copy of SVIMS outpatient card and OPD Bill and cash receipt of the complainant. Dt: 05.04.2015.
	Fortis Hospitals Limited Outpatient bills (2 in No.) and prescription of the complainant in original. Dt: 08.04.2015.
	Photo copy of G-mail for parking charges of AP-03-BM-5700 given by Raja Shriram Ford Manager. Dt: 09.05.2016.
	True copy of Surveyor Uma Maheswar estimation for the sum of Rs. 14,17,450-72ps for the car AP-03-BM-5700 given by Raja Shriram Ford Manager. Dt: 08.04.2015.
	True copy of Transaction enquiry of Bank of India, Balaji Colony Branch for the Car loan Account No. 869560510000034 of the complainant.
	Photos (11 in No.)of the damaged car No. AP-03-BM-5700 along with the C.D.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Motor Insurance Claim form submitted by the complainant to the opposite party filed on behalf of the opposite party. Period of Insurance from 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2015.
	True copy of Policy with terms and conditions pertaining to the complainant vehicle filed on behalf of the opposite party. Policy issued on 11.11.2014. Period of Insurance from 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2015.
	True copy of Investigation report pertaining to the alleged accident filed on behalf of the opposite party. Claim referral to investigation Dt: 20.04.2015.
	True copy of Provisional survey report pertaining to the alleged accident filed on behalf of the opposite party. Dt: 27.04.2015.
	Office copy of the letter addressed to the complainant filed on behalf of the opposite party with original postal receipt. Dt: 22.12.2014.
	Office copy of the letter addressed to the complainant filed on behalf of the opposite party with original postal receipt. Dt: 28.07.2015.
	True copy of Letter addressed to the complainant sent by the opposite party filed on behalf of the opposite party with original postal receipt. Dt: 18.08.2015.
	Office copy of the letter addressed to the complainant filed on behalf of the opposite party along with original postal receipt. Dt: 25.08.2015.
	Office copy of the letter addressed to the complainant filed on behalf of the opposite party with original postal receipt. Dt: 03.09.2015.
	INVOICE, FORENSIC REPORT issued by the SIFS, INDIA, Forensic Science Organisation filed by the opposite party in original. Dt: 18.05.2015.
	INVOICE, FORENSIC REPORT issued by the SIFS, INDIA, Forensic Science Organisation filed by the opposite party in original. Dt: 26.05.2015.

 

 

                                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

 

       // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.