Date of filing: 26.03.2021
Date of Disposal: 30.06.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.271/2021
PRESENT:
SRI. SHIVARAMA, K:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
Sri.Shivakumar. B,
Aged about 31 years,
S/o. Sri.Beeranna,
Residing at No.186,
Indlavadi Village and Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore-560 106.
(Advocate – Sri.S Vema Reddy)
V/s
- M/s. Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Company Limited.,
No.30, 3rd Floor, J.N.R City Center,
Raja Ram Mohan Ray Road,
Bangalore-560 027.
Represented by its Manager.
- M/s. RoyalSundaram General
Insurance Company Limited.,
Corporate Office:
Vishranti Melaram Towers,
No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai
(OMR), Karapakkam,
Chennai-600 097.
Represented by its General Manager.
- M/s. Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Company Limited.,
Registered Office:
No.21, Patullos Road,
Chennai-600 002.
Represented by its General Manager.
(Advocate – Sri.Prashant T Pandit)
******
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to settle the claim of the complainant pertaining to his car bearing No. KA-01-MK-7658 in terms of insurance policy on total loss basis as per declared value for a sum of Rs.3,47,000/- and award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and such other relief as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. It is not in dispute that a private car package policy was issued by opposite party for the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-01-MK-7658. Further, the policy was in force from 29.07.2020 to 28.07.2021. Further, it is not in dispute that opponent had repudiated the claim on the ground that there was misrepresentation of facts and had obtained the policy.
3. It is the further case of the complainant that on 08.08.2020 when he was driving the car at Thattagere, Anekal Taluk, it had met with self accident resulting in extensive damage and it has total loss. Further the complainant had intimated the same to opponent insurance company. Since the opponent had repudiated the claim to settle as per the declared value of the car for Rs.3,47,000/- thereby indulged in unfair trade practice by collecting premium. Hence the complaint came to be filed.
4. It is the further case of the OP-3 that the alleged accident took place within 10 days from the date the vehicle has been inspected by opponent to issue insurance policy. Further on perusal of the surveyor photographs taken after the accident and the photographs taken pre inspection report of the vehicle in question, it was found that the vehicle actually surveyed after the accident was different vehicle than the insured vehicle, hence has rightly repudiated the claim.
5. To prove the case the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-4 documents. The representative of OP.1 to 3 (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex.R-1 to R-6 documents.
6. Counsels for both the parties have filed their respective written arguments. PW-1 and RW-1 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings in the affidavits filed in the form their evidence in chief.
7. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief
as sought ?
iii) What order?
8. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In Negative
Point No.2: In Negative
Point No.3: As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:- It is the contention of the learned counsel for OP that the vehicle insured is different from the vehicle said to have been involved in the accident. It is the further contention that as per the vehicle pre inspection report the model of the vehicle was ASTA ABS as per accident vehicle Magna. Further as per the vehicle inspection report taken before issuing the policy the tyres of the vehicle was Apollo tyres. The tyres of the accidental vehicle were MRF, ECM. Further Air cleaner also differs. Further wheel caps, handles, alloy wheels, seat covers, pollution stickers, fuel lid stickers also differs from the vehicle inspection report and the damaged vehicle. In support of his contention he relies Ex.R-2 the policy and Ex.R-5 the survey report filed by surveyor of OP after the alleged accident. It is stated in the report vide Ex.R-5 that the report was issued without prejudice. Further the surveyor has clearly mentioned with regard to variation found in the vehicle inspected.
10. Apart from that on perusal of the photographs taken on 29.07.2020 i.e., at the time of issuing policy while Ex.R-3 and photographs taken after alleged accident there is lot of difference in the photographs and it supports the say of RW-1 in his evidence that the photos taken after the alleged accident relates to old car and the damages appears to be rusted one and not a fresh one. Complainant did not produce any material contrary to the evidence of RW-1 with regard to his say about the damage and the difference found in the parts of the vehicle.
11. It is further contended by the learned counsel for OP that the policy was issued for the period from 29.07.2020 to 28.07.2021. The alleged accident according to the complainant took place on 08.08.2020. Hence same is within proximity of 10 days. For mere because accident took place within the proximity of 10 days it cannot be said that the insured vehicle did not involve in the accident but the same supports the case of the opponent that there was misrepresentation at the time of taking policy. Other than the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the insured vehicle has met with an accident and at that time the policy was valid and the opponent did not deny the fact of accident and damage caused of the car nothing is established with regard to the change in the parts of the vehicle as stated above.
12. In support of the contention the learned counsel for the opponent relies the judgment reported in (1) 2016 CPJ 93 (NC) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ANR. Vs Anita Zilu Chodankar. In the said case there was deviation in chassis number and mileage covered by the vehicle in pre inspection report and report of surveyor. Hence Hon’ble Commission had opined that complainant had practiced fraud and misrepresentation of fact. In the case on hand there is no such allegations with regard to the deviation of chassis and pre mileage report. As per survey report odometer reading was not working in the vehicle said to have been involved in the accident. We feel the above said fact is sufficient to hold that the complainant had misrepresented and obtained the policy vide Ex.P-2. Ex.P-2 and R-2 are one and the same.
13. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the opponent that the complainant did not produce any documents to prove that the vehicle had sustained extensive damage and it was a total loss and the vehicle cannot be repaired. Even in the survey report vide Ex.R-5 also it is not said that the vehicle cannot be repaired. Hence on that ground also there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant and no merit in the claim of the complainant. Further as per the conditions of the policy vide Ex.R-2 if the repair of the car exceeds 75% of the IDV of the private car the insured car shall be treated as constructive total loss (CTL). No material has been produced to that effect by the complainant. Hence the complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency. Accordingly, we answer this point in negative.
14.Point No. 2:- In view of the finding on point No.1, this point is answered in negative.
15. POINT No.3:- In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:
-
- Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
3. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
(Dictated to the stenographer and transcribed by him and typed by him and corrected and then pronounced in the open Commission on 30th day of June, 2023)
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined from the side of complainant:
Sri.Shivakumar B, the complainant (PW-1).
Documents marked from the side complainant:
- Copy of registration certificate of car No.KA-01-MK-7658.
- Copy of insurance policy
- Copy of claim form.
- Copy of photographs.
- Copy of letter by OP dated 04.09.2020.
- Copy of legal notice dated 04.11.2020.
- Copy of postal receipts.
- Copy of postal acknowledgments.
Witness examined from the side of opposite party:
Sri.Dinesh H.P, who being Assistant Manager of OP-3 (RW-1)
Documents marked from the side of Opposite Party:
1. Copy of letter of authorization.
2. Copy of policy terms and conditions.
3. Xerox copy of vehicle photos with inspection report.
4. Xerox copy of claim form.
5. Xerox copy of survey report with photos.
6. Xerox copy of repudiation letter dated 04.09.2020.
- RAJU.K.S) (SHIVARAMA, K)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Vln*
