Date of Filing: 28.05.2015
Date of Order:08.10.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER.
Monday, the 8th day of October, 2018
C.C.No.289 /2015
Between
Smt. Sandipamu Mercy,
W/o. Kurapati Vijaya Rao,
Aged about 47 years, Indian,
Occ: Service,
R/o. Flat No.306, Block – F,
Vertex Sadguru Krupa Apartments,
Nizampet Road, Hyder Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500072. ……Complainant
And
- M/s. Renault Hyderabad
(A Unit of Sri Sri Sri Auto Cars (I) Pvt., Ltd.,
Membi Centre, 6-1-346/3,
New Bholguda, Secunderabad -500027.
Rep. by it’s Managing Director.
- Sri Sri Sri Auto Cars (I) Pvt., Ltd.,
Membi Centre, 6-1-346/3,
New Bholguda, Secunderabad -500027.
Rep. by it’s Managing Director.
- Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.7-1-21A, APDL Estates, 1st Floor,
Opp: Hotel Country Club, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500016.
Rep. by it’s Branch Manager. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. V.Gouri Sankara Rao & Associates
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri T.Rajanikanth Reddy, O.P.Nos.1 & 2
: Sri N.Mohan Krishna, O.P.No.3
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging deficiency of service and in consequences of it seeking a sum of Rs.7,08,000/- with interest as the value of the insurance claim and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing inconvenience, hardship and mental agony on account of non-payment of the amount claimed by Opposite Party No.3 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Complainant case is Opposite Party No.1 is the dealer of M/s. Renault Cars and is a unit of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant purchased a Renault Car on 17.11.2013 and as per the Proforma Invoice issued the total cost of the Car was Rs.11,67,883/- which is inclusive of Life Tax ,Insurance, Essential Kit, L & F charges, and Permanent Registration Opposite Party No.1 also offered two years Insurance + Rs.25,000/- as discount. Opposite Party No.1 further informed that, as per the scheme of the company two years free insurance and another two years will be done by the Company i.e., the Opposite Party No.2. The complainant availed a car loans for M/s. Magma Finance and EMI payable was Rs.11,150/- per month commencing from 10.12.2013 and ends by 09.12.2018. The total cost paid for the purchase of the car was Rs.9,86,900/- and the car was registered as AP 28 CL 2777.
1. Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have arranged Private Car Policy from M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited in Policy bearing No.VPC06089960000100 for a sum of Rs.8,85,000/- and it covers for the period from 12.12.2013 to the midnight of 11.12.2014. For the second years, the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 have shifted to Policy from M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited to M/s. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited the Opposite Party No.3 herein and it was not within the knowledge of the complainant or consent. The Policy issued by Opposite Party No.3 for the second year was for a sum of Rs.7,08,000/- and period of coverage was from 00:01 hours midnight of 13.12.2014 to the midnight of 12.12.2015 and Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 have completed all the formalities and paid premium to Opposite Party No.3.
2. Later the said Car was met with an accident on 23.12.2014 at Bachupally, and a complaint was lodged with Dundigal Police. Though, no injury was caused to anyone the car was heavily damaged and the Police, Bachupally conducted a Panchanama for the accident. Soon after the accident it was informed to Opposite Party No.1 who suggested to shift the car to it’s Showroom and working place at L.B. Nagar and accordingly Car was shifted to M/s. TVS Automobile Solutions Limited on 24.12.2014. The said workshop people have given a repair order showing the damage and repairs required to the attended to the car.
3. By the date of above said accident the complainant has not received the Insurance Policy copy and infact she was not aware of the Insurer with whom the Car was insured on her behalf by Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2. The complainant after enquire with Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 down loaded the Insurance Policy copy and then came to know that the Car was insured with Opposite Party No.3. Hence, the accident was reported to Opposite Party No.3 on 29.12.2014. The complainant was informed by Opposite Party No.3 that her claim was registered and Mr. Trinadh Rao was appointed to Survey and Assess the Loss and complainant was advised to submit claim Form Certificate of Registration, Driving License, complete estimation of loss, F.I.R., from the Police and other related documents. Accordingly, at the time of inspection by said surveyor the complainant submitted all the records. Opposite Party No.2 gave an estimation of Rs.13,87,420/- in addition to the taxes towards cost of the repairs to the car. The said estimation is more than the value of Insurance Policy at Rs.7,08,000/-. Hence it shall be construed as constructive total loss.
4. The complainant husband pursued with the Opposite Parties for settlement of the claim and visited them number of times apart from making phone calls. On 16.03.2015 the complainant gave a representation to Opposite Party No.3 in the early settlement of the claim. On 16.04.2015 she submitted another representation to Opposite Party No.1 with copies of the same to Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3. But, there was no response from any of them. The complainant’s husband on 25.0.4.2015 enquired about the status of the claim with the Surveyor Mr. Trinadh Rao who posted a letter on 16.03.2015 to Opposite Party No. 3 and same was also sent to him through e-mail on 26.04.2015. The contents of the said letter dated 16.03.2015 shows that the Opposite Party No. 3 allege that the complainant misrepresented the date of inception and expiry of previous Insurance Policy and that the accident occurred much prior to 23.12.2014. Opposite Party No.3 sought clarifications from the complainant within 10 days otherwise claim will be closed as “No Claim.” On 06.05.2015 complainant had sent clarification to Opposite Party No. 3 stating that, there is no misrepresentation about the date of commencement and expiry of the first Policy and entire formalities were done by Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 for first year Policy. Hence, she cannot be made responsible for any discrepancy in the cover note. She requested Opposite Party No. 3 to co-ordinate with Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 and settle the claim at the earliest. Opposite Party No. 1 issued a final reminder letter to the complainant to co-ordinate with Opposite Party No. 2 for resolving to issue and give approval to start the repair works and otherwise she has to pay demurrage charges at Rs.300/- per day as vehicle was lying with them from 30.12.2014.
5. The complainant was constrained to pay regular EMIs to the financier. There was no possibility of repairing the Car by the complainant since the cost of the repairs are more than the value of the vehicle. It is the responsibility of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 to obtain Insurance Policies for the first two years without any fault. Hence, for any discrepancy in the first year Policy or for the subsequent Policy issued by the Opposite Party No. 3, it is their gross negligence and deficiency of services. Failure to the settle the claim by Opposite Party No. 3 not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice. Hence, Opposite Parties are liable to pay Insurance Policy amount jointly and severally with interest, compensation and costs of the complaint as stated supra.
6. The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 filed a common counter admitting material part of the complainant version with regard to purchase of the Car obtaining a first Policy from M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and second Policy from Opposite Party No.3 but denied the complainant’s allegation that she was not informed about shifting of the Policy to Opposite Party No.3 for the second year. The first Policy was commenced from 12.12.2013 to the midnight of 11.12.2014 and they have informed Opposite Party No.3 on 11.12.2014 itself and the cover note indicates period of Insurance Policy from 13.12.2014 to the midnight of 12.12.2015 the Policy commences from the date of submitting the cover note itself. When the accident occurred on 23.12.2014 the Insurance Policy issued by Opposite Party No.3 who was subsisting and they never misrepresented with regard to commencement and expiry dates first Policy.
7. Because the vehicle of the complainant is kept in their garage it is difficult to maintain properly and to prevent further damage from rust etc., hence reminder letter was issued to the complainant to resolve the issue and get the car repaired. The complainant has to fight with the Opposite Party No.3 for settlement of the claim. Hence, complainant against Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 is liable to be dismissed.
8. Resisting the complainants claim Opposite Party No.3 filed a separate written version stating that initially a cover note bearing No.4048823 issued by M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited shows that the Policy period is from 13.12.2013 to 12.12.2014 but a close scrutiny shows the period of Insurance was 12.12.2013 to 11.12.2014 but same has been tampered by the complainant. The Opposite Party No.3 issued the Policy for the second year for an assured amount of Rs.7,08,000/- covering the period from 13.12.2014 to the midnight hours of 12.12.2015.
9. After intimation of alleged accident by the complainant the Opposite Party No.3 appointed an investigative Agency viz., Agile HRM Services on 02.01.2014 and same had submitted report on 17.02.2014 stating that the date of accident was in the early hours of 13.12.2014 and the Policy issued by the Company was after the said accident. The Opposite party No.3 also appointed a surveyor by name Mr. Y.Venkatesh who also opined that accident might have occurred prior to the date of issuance of the Policy by the Company. The said surveyor also assessed loss to the vehicle at Rs.4,25,000/- subject to the admissibility of the claim. The Opposite Party No.3 addressed letters to SHO., Dundigal P.S., on 27.05.2015 and 01.07.2015 and copies of the said letters are marked to Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad to reinvestigate the alleged accident and ascertain actual date of it. Thereafter it issued a No Claim Letter to the complainant on 16.03.2015 informing that, the complainant had misrepresented the date of inception and expiry of previous Policy by submitting of copy of cover note containing overwriting Policy period of previous of Policy and it amounts to violation of declaration process in the Proposal Form.
10. There are material contradictions in the Panchanama conducted to the place of accident and GD entry in the P.S., and since disputed set of facts are involved without appreciation of the evidence this Forum cannot entertain the complaint and it has to be adjudicated before a civil court for proper appreciation of evidence. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the enquiry stage complainant has filed her evidence affidavit and she also exhibited 19 documents. For Opposite Party NOs.1 & 2, the evidence affidavit of one Mr. M. Srinivas, Managing Director of Opposite Party No.1 is filed and through him four (4) documents are exhibited. Similarly for the Opposite Party No.3 evidence affidavit of one Mr. Keshava Rao stated to be General Manager, claims is filed and through him nine (9) documents are exhibited. All the parties to the complaint have filed written arguments and supplemented the same with oral submissions.
On a consideration of material on the record the following points have fallen for consideration.
- Whether there was suppression of material facts by complainant and Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 while obtaining Policy from Opposite Party No.3 for the car purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 ?
- Whether closure of the claim by the Opposite Party No.3 treating as no claim is justified ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims made in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: Since, the purchase of the Car by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 who assured to pay the premium for the first two years Policy is not in dispute no rowing enquiry is required on the subject Car. The main allegation of the Opposite Party No.3 is as per the cover note Ex.B5 issued by M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited the Policy period is from 13.12.2013 to 12.12.2014 but close scrutiny of the Policy reveals that, the period of Insurance mentioned on 12.12.2013 to 11.12.2014 but it was tempered by the complainant. As already said it is Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 who agree to take Policy for the subject Car for the first two years after purchase by the complainant. Though, an Ex.B5 effective date and time of commencement as the Policy shown as 13.12.2013 date of expiry as a midnight of 12.12.2014 the Policy in Ex.B7 filed by Opposite Party No.3 itself shows that the period of Policy is from 19:30 hours of 12.12.2013 to the midnight of 11.12.2014, date of issue of the Policy as evidenced by Ex.B5 is 12.12.2013 and admittedly Policy will come in to force on the date of obtaining itself. The cover note copy validity is only till the issuance of the Policy. The Policy issued in the second year by Opposite Party No.3 and Ex.B6 the period of insurance shows is 00:01 hours 13.12.2014 to the midnight of 12.12.2015. Ex.B7 Policy expires on the midnight of 11.12.2014 and Policy issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Ex.B6 commenced on the midnight of 13.12.2014 so for one day i.e., on from the midnight of 11.12.2014 to the midnight of 13.12.2014 there was no Policy for the subject Car. Policy Ex.B7 mentions clearly the Policy period there was no misrepresentation of the facts by Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 or the complainant as alleged by the Opposite Party No.3. Even assuming for a movement that the dates in the cover note Ex.B5 the tampered how it absolves liability of Opposite Party No.3 from the subject Policy is not stated. As such the plea taken by the Opposite Party No.3 that, there was misrepresentation as to the Policy period for the first year and amounts to suppression of facts has no legs to stand. Accordingly the Point is answered against Opposite Party No.3.
Point No.2: The version of the complainant, Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 is subject Car met with an accident on 23.12.2014 in the midnight hours and it was brought to the notice Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 and also Opposite Party No.3 after the securing the car of the Policy. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3 appointed Agile HRM Services on 02.01.2014 to investigate and the report of said Agency is placed on record as Ex.B8 and it says the date of accident in Police records are manipulated and the enquiries made by the Agency revealed that, the accident was before the claim date and as per the version of the various people in and around the spot of it is the case drunken drive. It is specifically mentioned in Ex.B8 report by Agency that, the accident occurred on the earlier to 23.12.2014 around 2:30 A.M., But, the statement of presence with whom the said Agency are not made enquiry filed with report. Infact, the Opposite Party No.3 addressed a letter to Sub Inspector of Police, Dundigal under Ex.B10 for reinvestigation of accident and it’s time at the earliest to settle the claim. It also addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police under Ex.B11 for reinvestigating of the claim and what happened to it’s request has not been stated. Even on the evidence affidavit of it’s witness. In the absence of any acceptable evidence that, the accident occurred earlier to 12.12.2014 and not on 23.12.2014 it is difficult to believe the version of Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant has placed the copy of the Panchanama by the Dundigal P.S., as Ex.A12 and it shows the Panchanama was conducted on 24.12.2014 and accident was occurred on 23.12.2014 at 10:30 a.m. In the report under Ex.B8 there is a mentioned that the date of Panchanama and GB entries are not tallying and this one of the reason to suspect the date of accident as 23.12.2014. What prevented the Opposite Party No.3 in securing the GD entry details and placing before the Forum is not stated. Hence, no credence can be given to the report submitted by Agile HRM Services under the Ex.B8 and for repudation of the claim. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point No.3: Closing of the complainant’s claim by Opposite Party No.3 as no claim is not justified. Opposite Party No.3 is directed to pay claim amount of Rs.7,08,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from 16.03.2015 to the date of payment. It is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony by repudating the claim. Opposite Party No.3 is also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of this complaint.
Point No.4: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party No.3 is to pay claim amount of Rs.7,08,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from 16.03.2015 to the date of payment. It is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony by repudating the claim. Opposite Party No.3 is also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of this complaint.
Complaint against Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 is dismissed.
Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 8th day of October, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Smt. Sandipamu Mercy Sri M.Keshava Rao
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Exhibit: A-1 is a copy of Poforma Invoice, dt.17.11.2013.
Exhibit: A-2 is a copy of Letter of O.P.No.1 dt.13.12.2013.
Exhibit: A-3 is a copy of Sale Invoice dt.13.12.2013.
Exhibit: A-4 is a copy of Letter of Magma Fincorp Ltd., dt.27.06.2014.
Exhibit: A-5 is a copy of Certificate of Insurance issued by M/s. Royal Sundaram.
Exhibit: A-6 is a copy of M/s. Royal Sundaram cover note.
Exhibit: A-7 is a copy of Private Car Insurance Policy issued by O.P.No.3.
Exhibit: A-8 is a copy of Cover Note issued by O.P.No.3.
Exhibit: A-9 is a copy of Proposal Form issued by O.P.No.3
Exhibit: A-10 is a copy of Breakdown Service Report Form dt.24.12.2014.
Exhibit: A-11 is a copy of Repair Order of O.P.No.1.
Exhibit: A-12 is a copy of Inquest Report issued by Dindial P.S.
Exhibit: A-13 is a copy of O.P.No.3 Letter dt.29.12.2014.
Exhibit: A-14 is a copy of Estimation issued by O.P.No.2.
Exhibit: A-15 is a copy of Final Reminder Letter issued by O.P.No.2.
Exhibit: A-16 is a copy of Representation of the complainant.
Exhibit: A-17 is a copy of Letter of O.P.No.3 dt.16.03.2015.
Exhibit: A-18 is a copy of Representation dt.16.04.2015.
Exhibit: A-19 is a copy of Representation dt.06.05.2015.
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party Nos.1 &2:
Exhibit: B-1 is a copy of Reminder Letter dt.13.07.2015.
Exhibit: B-2 is a copy of Reminder Letter dt.15.07.2015.
Exhibit: B-3 is a copy of Final Reminder Letter dt.13.07.2015.
Exhibit: B-4 is a copy of Final Reminder Letter dt.19.09.2015.
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party No.3
Exhibit: B-5 is a copy of Cover Note of RSA, dt.12.12.2013.
Exhibit: B-6 is a copy of Policy with Terms and Conditions, dt13.12.2013.
Exhibit: B-7 is a copy of Original RSA Policy, dt.12.12.2013.
Exhibit: B-8 is a copy of AGILE HRM Services Report, 02.01.2014.
Exhibit: B-9 is a copy of Survey Report of Y.V. Reddy, dt.18.03.2015.
Exhibit: B-10 is a copy of Letter to SHO., Dundigal, dt.27.05.2015.
Exhibit: B-11 is a copy of Letter to Commissioner of Police, dt.01.07.2015.
Exhibit: B-12 is a copy of No Claim Letter, dt.16.03.2015.
Exhibit: B-13 is a copy of Proposal Form, dt.13.12.2014.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
kps
