Karnataka

Kolar

CC/33/2022

Smt.Premavathi.V.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing: 04/08/2022

Date of Order: 07/01/2023

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES,KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 07^thDAY OF JANUARY 2023

SRI.SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT.SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 33 OF 2022

Smt. Premavathi V.N,

W/o. Rajakumar G.P,

D/o.Narayanappa,

Aged About 45 Years,

R/at: Guddanahalli Village,

Doddakadathuru Post,

Malur Taluk, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri.P.N.Srinath, Advocate)                           ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

M/s. United India Insurance

Company Limited,

Divisional Office, Suguna

Nursing Home Complex,

Antharagange Road,

Kolar-563 101.

(Rep. by Sri. J.Simon, Advocate)                                …. Opposite Party.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OP alleging deficiency in service and pray to direct the OP-insurance company to pay the damages to an extent of Rs.4,02,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realization.

2)  The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the owner of the Thar CRDE Car bearing registration No.KA-08-M-7180 and the same was purchased during the year 2019.   It is stated that, complainant has insured the above said car with the OP bearing policy No.0731003121P108876508 and the validity of the policy for the period from 03.12.2021 to 02.12.2022 and the complainant paid premium amount of Rs.13,384/- and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.7,73,114/-.  Further states that, on 14.01.2022 the vehicle of the complainant was coming back to her village Guddanahalli from Malur Town driven by its driver by name Bhargav G.A. s/o. Anjanappa G.P who is the complainant’s brother’s son, while coming to Guddanahalli on the way at about 10.00 Pm by the side of her garden land, the driver of the vehicle in order to avoid stray dog come across the road resulting the vehicle fell in to 12 feet deep big ditch and the vehicle was extensively damaged.  It is stated that, on 15.01.2022 complainant informed the incident and damages to the Mahindra Show room situated at Bangalore which is authorized sales and service center over a phone call.  Thereafter the service center manager sent a towing vehicle to the incidence spot and towed the vehicle to their service center situated at Bangalore.  Further stated that, the Manager of the Service Center immediately intimated to the regional office of the Op situated at Bangalore by detailing the accidental damage to the car.  Thereafter the OP-insurance company sent a surveyor by name Madhu to assess the loss and also the OP-insurance company appointed another surveyor by name Ravi Chandra to assess the loss.  Ultimately the OP-insurance surveyor assessed the damage to the extent of Rs.3,38,769/-. The complainant submits that, the automobile mechanics estimated the damages to the car to the extent of Rs.4,87,886/-, but the complainant has paid Rs.4,02,000/- to Ananth Cars Auto Private Limited a subsidiary company of Mahindra Sales & Service Center.  It is stated that, the OP-insurance company after assessing damages and visiting the spot ultimately have repudiated the claim of the complainant and hence complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Op and filed this complaint.

03.        On issuance of notice OP appeared through its counsel and filed its version.

04.        In the version it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in eye of law or on facts on the ground that the complainant has not given the claim intimation immediately to the OP-insurance company and also not given information to the concerned police authority about the cause of accident and occurrence of loss as per the condition of the policy.  Further contended that, the intimation is given after lapse of 6 days and the OP appointed surveyor one B.K. Ravichandra who has gathered the preliminary information about the accident whereas the insured has not produced sufficient required details for the proof of accident.  Further contended that, the Driver of the said car Bharghava G.V was not at all present at the place and time of accident and was only given his name for the sake of getting illegal claim and the said driver name is implanted for availing the false claim by misrepresenting the facts of the accident and it is contrary to the principle of utmost faith.  On the above said grounds OP prays to dismiss the complaint.

05.        In order to prove the case of both complainant and OP-insurance company and they have filed their affidavit evidence along with supporting documents.

06.        On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed on record, the following points will do arise for our consideration:-

(1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Op?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought for in the complaint?

(3) What Order?

07.   Our findings on the above points are:-

        POINT Nos. (1) & (2):-     Are in the Affirmative

        POINT No.(3):-                 As per the final order

                                                for the following :-

REASONS

08.     POINT NOs.(1) & (2):- These points are interlinked to each other and hence taken up together for common discussion, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of reasonings.

09.        On perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant is the RC owner of the Thar CRDE Car bearing registration No. KA-08-M-7180.  Further it is not in dispute that, the above said car was insured with the OP-insurance company bearing policy No.0731003121P108876508 and the validity of the policy commencing from 03.12.2021 to 02.12.2022.  Further it is also not in dispute that, on 14.01.2022 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and it was damaged.   It is also not in dispute that the OP-insurance company deployed the surveyor and assessed the damage caused to the Car to an extent of Rs.3,38,769/-.  Further OP has not denied the fact that, the car was repaired at Ananth Automobiles Limited, Bangalore, which is the subsidiary unit of the Mahindra Service Center.

10.        The crux of the matter is to consider is that, the driver of the car was not driven by the G.V. Bhargav who caused the accident as stated in the complaint and delay in informing the insurer and not lodging the police complaint whether the same is disentitle the complainant  to claim the insurance?

11.        On perusing the insurance policy bearing No.0731003121P108876508 the policy schedule discloses that, “Private Car Standalone Own Damage” and this clearly discloses that, the owner of the vehicle is entitled to claim damages in respect of the accidental damages it comes under the private car standalone own damages.  Further it is the contention of the OP-insurance company that, complainant failed to inform the accident to the concerned police, whereas informing to the concerned police damages caused by self accident is not at all required as the damages is not disputed by the OP. The main purpose of the insurance coverage is mean for personal damage and the case of the complainant covers under the personal damage.

12.        On perusal of the driving license held by the Bhargav G.A. it discloses that, the said driver possessing valid driving license till 12.01.2035, however OP did not produce any cogent evidence except the saying of their Investigating Team that, the car in question was not driven by the Bhargav .G.V.  Furthermore in the absence of cogent evidence we cannot disbelieve the case of the complainant that, his brother’s son driven the vehicle which is insured with the OP-insurance company. Above all the policy purpose to cover personal accident also and hence much importance cannot be given who has driven the vehicle in order to claim insurance amount.

13.        On perusal of the affidavit evidence placed on record both parties retreated the facts stated in their complaint and version and deposed the same in their affidavit and it is just replica of their pleadings.  On perusal of the investigation report dated: 29.04.2022 it discloses the documents enclosed are of the following:- 1) copy of the insurance policy, 2) copy of the RC, 3) Copy of the Driver’s DL, 4) insured written statement, 5)copy of insured Aadhar Card, 6) IV service estimate from work shop 7) IV repair order from work shop, 8) insured vehicle photos 9) accident spot.  And these documents are enough to honour the claim of the complainant, but the OP-insurance company reached to their own conclusion that, Bhargav G.A. and Rajkumar were not in the vehicle on the date, time and place of the accident and the Bhargav G.A. had not driven at the time of accident.  Based on these facts repudiated the claim.  It is worth to mention that, it is not the case of  OP-insurance company is that, somebody was driven the vehicle who is not holding effective driving license and also OP-insurance company did not rebut the evidence placed on record that is valid driving license hold by the said Bhargav and who driven the vehicle.  In the absence of cogent evidence the contentions raised by the OP-insurance company holds no water.  Once policy is issued and when the vehicle met with an accident and the insurance company surveyor assessed the loss and hence it is duty of the insurance company to honour the claim and not doing so, it obviously amounts to deficiency in service.

14.        Further on perusal of the estimated Quotation raised by the Ananth Cars Auto Private Limited in order to repair the accidental car, the estimation was given at Rs.4,87,886/-, however the complainant himself in his complaint stated that, he had paid Rs.4,02,000/- to Ananth Cars Auto Private Limited and took the possession of the vehicle.  Whereas the insurance surveyor assessed the loss to an extent of Rs.3,38,769.17 towards net assessed loss.  However the net assessed loss assessed by the insurance surveyor cannot be rebutted by placing other independent evidence, but filed only computer generated bill to an extent of Rs.3,92,097/-.  Under the circumstances we will consider the insured surveyor report dated: 05.07.2022 placed on record and the net assessed loss is shown to an extent of Rs.3,38,769/-.  We therefore it is just and proper to direct the OP-insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.3,38,769/- to the complainant towards repairing charges along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of repudiation letter dated: 06.07.2022 till the realization of the amount along with cost of Rs.2,000/-.  Accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 are in the affirmative.

 

15.   POINT NO.(3):- On the basis of the answering the Point Nos. (1) & (2) and thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed with cost as against OP-insurance company.

 

02.   The OP-Insurance company is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,38,769/- towards repairing charges along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of repudiation letter dated: 06.07.2022 till the realization of the amount.

 

03.   The OP-Insurance Company further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

 

04.   The OP-Insurance Company shall comply the order at Serial Nos.2 & 3 within 30 days from the date of the order and shall submit compliance report before this Commission within 45 days from the date of the order.

 

05.   Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 07^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023)

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT