Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/781/2016

Madhusudhan S. R - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

D.S. Sridhar G

19 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 31.05.2016

                                                      Disposed on: 19.05.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027    

 

 

CC.No.781/2016

DATED THIS THE19^thMAY OF2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Madhusudhan S.R., S/o Ramesh S.B. Aged about 25 years R/o GowriKaluve SingariNilaya Road, Chickmagaluru District-577101.  And also R/at No.50/1, Krishnappa Building Teachers’ Colony Main Road Venkatapura, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034.   By Sri.Adv.D.S.Sridhar		M/s Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., No.36, H.M. Astride, II Floor, J.C.Road, Minerva Circle, Bengaluru-560 002.   By Sri.Adv.S.Krishna Kishore

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the Complainantas against the Opposite Partydirecting topay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards damages to the vehicle and also loss of earnings from the date of accident and further direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month from 5.9.2014 till to-date being amount paid by the Complainant to Sri.Deepu, Mallavkoppa, Shimoga as parking charges for having parked the damaged vehicle along with interest at 18% p.a.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Opposite Party has issued an Insurance Policy bearing No.P0014300004/4103/273352, valid from 10.12.2013 to 9.12.2014 in respect of Maruti Swift Car bearing Reg., No.KA-05-AD-1411 and the said policy initially was in the name of Mr.Manjunath J.S. The Complainant submits that Mr.Manjunath J.S. has sold the above said vehicle in favour of the Complainant and R.C. is transferred to the name of the Complainant on 10.6.2014 and subsequent to transfer of R.C., the Complainant has approached the Opposite Party within 14 days from the date of transfer of R.C. in his name and the same has been effected from 21.6.2014 to 9.12.2014 vide endorsement No.EE01. The Complainant submits that as he could seek the transfer of insurance policy to his name i.e., within 14 days from the date of transfer of R.C., the vehicle in question met with an accident on 19.6.2014 and in respect of damages to the vehicle i.e.total loss of vehicle, as the same could not be repaired, a claim was submitted to the Opposite Party by following the procedure of the Opposite Party and inspite of submitting the necessary documents along with the estimation of Shruthi Motors, the Opposite Party from time to time has written unnecessary letters in calling for producing documents and inspite of repeated reminders to the Opposite Party that he has already submitted the necessary documents, the Opposite Party without looking into the same has failed to settle the claim of the Complainant. The damages to the vehicle is in a sum of Rs.6,10,910/- as per the estimation of Shruthi Motors. The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party ought to have settled the claim of the Complainant within a reasonable period and having failed to do so, he has written a letter dt.27.3.2015 demanding to settle the claim, failing which that he will approach the necessary Forum for Redressal of his grievance. The Opposite Party has neither replied for the letter dt.27.3.2015 nor it has settled the claim and the Opposite Party has failed to settle the claim of the Complainant, the Opposite Party has committed deficiency of service in not settling the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the vehicle was lying/parked in Shruthi Motors ever since the damage of the accident till 5.9.2014 for which they have charged Rs.4,494.40 and in order to avoid further charges being made by the said Shruthi Motors and as the vehicle is not yet repaired as the same is not in repairable condition, the Complainant has left the vehicle with one Sri.Deepu at Mallavakoppa, Shimoga, on the charges of Rs.2,500/- per month and even today the vehicle is at the same place and the Opposite Party may at any time inspect the same. The Complainant submits that he was using the vehicle for the commercial purpose, who has valid permit for the same and was eking out his livelihood by earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month from the said vehicle, excluding all the expenses and maintenance of the vehicle. If the claim of the Complainant had been settled within a reasonable time by the Opposite Party, the earnings of the Complainant would have continued by investing the said amount for purchase of another vehicle and but for non-settlement of the claim, the Complainant has not only lost his earnings but also put to mental stress and agony and has also lost the earnings ever since the date of the said accident, which the party is liable to make good the same and the Complainant makes the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- from the Opposite Party. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

3.       Notices were ordered issue to the Opposite Party who did appear and filed the version denying the allegations made by the Complainant against him.

          4.       The sum and substance of the version filed by the Opposite Party are thatthe complaint filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Party for not settling his own damage claim is not maintainable in the eye of law. The Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          5.       The Opposite Party submits thatMr.Manjunath J.S., being the owner of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.KA.05-AD-1411 obtained commercial vehicle (passenger carrying vehicle) package policyNo.P0014300004/4103/273352 from the Opposite Party from 11.00 hours of 10.12.2013 to midnight of 9.12.2014. The sum insured mentioned in the said policy is Rs.4,50,000/-. Mr.Manjunath said to have been sold the said car to Mr.Madhusudan i.e., the Complainant and the Complainant got transferred the registration certificate of the said car in his name on 10.6.2014. The Complainant alleged that subsequent to the change of RC in his name, he approached the Opposite Party within 14 days from the date of transfer of RC in his name to transfer the insurance policy in his name. However, the insurance policy came to be transferred in the name of the Complainant from 12-45 hrs of 21.6.2014 to midnight of 9.12.2014. The Complainant submitted claim to the Opposite Party with regard to the damages caused to the said car in the accident dt.19.6.2014. Since the Complainant has not got transferred the insurance policy in his name as on the date of the accident i.e.,on 19.6.2014 and he has not complied with the demand made by the Opposite Party to furnish all relevant documents to process his claim, his claim could not be processed and finalized. The Opposite Party having received the claim from the Complainant on 1.7.2014, registered the same as claim No.C/15/300026/4103/2/05002501/1, processed the same by appointing Mr.NarayanaAithal, approved Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Valuer to conduct Motor Sport Survey, subsequently appointed Mr.C.Prithvi, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor to submit Motor preliminary survey report after inspecting the insured vehicle, secured motor spot survey report dt.13.8.2014 from Mr.Narayanaaithal and Motor preliminary survey report dt.28.8.2014 from C.Prithvi, wrote letters dt.12.2.2015, 6.3.2015, 18.3.2015 and 30.3.2015 to the Complainant to submit repair bills, cash receipt and production of vehicle for re-inspection and since there was no reply from the Complainant to the said letters sent by the Opposite Party and upon scrutiny of the claim, it is observed that Mr.Madhusudan’s name is not mentioned in the insurance policy and Mr.Manjunath J.S. name is mentioned as insured at the material time of accident. As per Indian Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA, there should exist insurable interest at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of loss. In the present case, the policy stands in the name of Manjunath as on the date of accident and the same was not transferred in the name of the Complainant. Hence, the Opposite Party sought clarification from the Complainant by sending letter dt.29.12.2014 as to policy was not in his name at the time of the loss. Since the Complainant failed to answer the clarification sought by the Opposite Party and failed to furnish/submit the repair bills, ash receipts and the vehicle for re-inspection, the claim of the Complainant was closed. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.

          6.       The Opposite Party submits that Chapter-XI of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks and section 157 of M.V.Act in the said Chapter deals with transfer of certificate of insurance. The own-damage-claim and interest are not extended by the insurers to comply with any statutory requirements. If it is third party risks, the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that all Motor vehicle owners shall obtain a policy to comply with Chapter-XI of the Motor Vehicles Act. The own-damage-claim is based purely on contract between the insurer and the insured. Unless there is a fresh contract by the purchaser/transferee of a vehicle to get the policy transferred to his name, the insurer will not be liable to make good any loss of a subsequent purchaser. The present complaint is filed by the Complainant , alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Party on the ground that, his own-damage claim amount was not paid by the Opposite Party. It is respectfully submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable which is filed by the transferee in whose name the policy was not transferred as on the date of accident/loss i.e., on 19.6.2014. Since the Complainant was not the insured or policy holder of the damaged car at the time of accident, he cannot claim any amount with the insurer since there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The Complainant had not got transferred the policy to his name as required under the contract of insurance within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle, as required u/s 157 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, which is a mandatory provision. The vehicle purchased by the Complainant met with an accident on 19.6.2014 resulting in damages. The Complainant reported the accident to the Opposite Party Company on 1.7.2014 and subsequently, claim form was submitted by him later on. Hence, there is no insurable interest to the Complainant as on the date of the loss.

          7.       The Opposite Party submits that the requirement of meeting the liability in respect of third party risks is mentioned u/s 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, wherein it is mentioned that certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein “shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the Motor Vehicle is transferred”. If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, i.e., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter-XI of M.V.Act and in the realm of contract for which, there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, to cover the risk of damages to the vehicle. In the present case, since there was no such contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation there to, to the transferee, the insurer is not liable to make good damages caused to the insured car.This proposition of law is confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd., V/s New India Assurance Co., Ltd., reported in 1 (1996) CPJ Page 1 (SC) and Rikhiram&anr V/s Sucrania and others reported in 2003 ACC 368 (SC). The Opposite Party submits that the General Regulations 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulations deals with the Transfer of Insurance Policy in case of sale of the vehicle by the Original Insured Owner. It reads as follows.

“G.R.17 Transfers

On transfer of ownership, the liability only cover, either under a liability only policy or under a package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.

The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance.

Incase of package policies, transfer of the “Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claims Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a letter percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee’s entitlement. If any, and that shows on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.

A fresh proposal form duly completed to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies.

Transfer of Package Policy in the same of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old certificate of insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and on a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh certificate in the name of the Transferee. If for any reason, the old certificate of insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the Transferee before a New Certificate of Insurance is issued. 

8.       The Opposite Party submits that he prays that section 157 (2) has to be read along with GR.17 of Indian Motor Tariff Regulations while dealing with the claim of a Transferee of a damaged vehicle in whose name the policy of insurance was not got transferred as on the date of loss or damage. In the present case, the Complainant did not get transferred the insurance policy in his name as on 19.6.2014. Since the claim of the Complainant is not payable in terms of Section 157(2) of M.V.Act and General Regulation 17 of Indian Motor Tariff Regulations, the same was repudiated by sending repudiation letter explaining the reasons for repudiation. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to claim any sum with Opposite Party.Hence, the Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          9.       The Complainant to substantiate his case filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Ex-A1 to A11. The Opposite Party Assistant Manager (Legal) named called Smt.MadhumatiHegde., filed affidavit. None of the documents got marked on behalf of the Opposite Party though filed. Both Complainant and the Opposite Party filed written arguments. Heard learned counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party.

 

          10.     The points that arise for our consideration are:

          1) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the 

part of the OPs, if so, whether heis entitled for the relief sought

for?

 

          2) What Order?

 

          11.Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1 :Negative

Point No.2 :As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

          12.POINT NO.1:   We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Opposite Party. The undisputed facts which reveals from the pleading of the parties goes to show that the Opposite Party issued Insurance Policy bearing No.P0014300004/4103/273352, valid from 10.12.2013 to 9.12.2014 in respect of Maruti Swift Car bearing Reg., No.KA-05-AD-1411 (herein referred as said vehicle) and the said policy initially was in the name of Mr.Manjunath J.S.

13.     It is also not in dispute that the said Mr.Manjunath J.S. has sold the said vehicle in favour of the Complainant and R.C. was transferred to the name of the Complainant on 10.6.2014 and subsequent to transfer of R.C., the Complainant has approached the Opposite Party within 14 days from the date of transfer of R.C. in his name and the same has been effected from 21.6.2014 to 9.12.2014.

14.     It is the specific case of the Complainant that he could seek the transfer of insurance policy to his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of R.C.The vehicle in question met with an accident on 19.6.2014 and in respect of damages to the vehicle i.e.total loss of vehicle, as the same could not be repaired,hence his claim was submitted to the Opposite Party by following the procedure.Inspiteof submitting the necessary documents along with the estimation of Shruthi Motors has shown in Ex-A1,but the Opposite Party has written unnecessary letters in calling for producing documents and inspite of repeated reminders, the Opposite Party has failed to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.6,10,910/-. It is also the specific case of the Complainant that his claim ought to have been settled within the time limit by the Opposite Party, butfailed tosettle it. Hence, he is entitled for the amount as stated in Para-12 of the complaint. Ongoing through the version filed by the Opposite Party, the sum and substance of the version is that the Complainant has not get transferred the insurance policy within 14 days from the date of transfer of RC in his name. Further, the original owner named Manjunath J.S. consent letter is also not furnished.Further, there is no separate agreement between the saidMr.ManjunathJ.S.and the Complainant in respect of the insurance policy. Hence, the claim is repudiated in accordance with law. In this context, we have already extracted the specific contention taken by the Opposite Party with reference to the relevant portions of Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulations. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Complainant submits that the Complainant has sufficient time to approach the Opposite Party to get transfer of insurance policy within 14 days. But the said vehicle was met with an accident on 19.6.2014 i.e.within 14 days from the date of transfer of the RC dt.10.6.2014,hence, the Opposite Party is not justified in repudiating the claim. In this context, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

1.       IV (2007) CPJ National Consumer (NCDRC) Narayana Singh V/s New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,

2.       Revision Petition No.1335/2015 (NCDRC) Bajaj Allianz General Inc Co., Ltd., V/s Kulvir Singh

3.       Revision Petition No.1408/2015 (NCDRC) Sunitha Devi V/s Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,

4.       Revision Petition No.1224/2012 (NCDRC) New India Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s Sanjb Nandi

5.       (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 724 Om Prakash V/s Reliance General Inc Co., Ltd.,

6.       High Court of Bombay F.A.No.194/2011 TarachandShrawanjiShambharkar V/s Prashant

 

 

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that by reiterating the contents of the objections filed by the Opposite Party to the complaint filed by the Complainant. It is also submitted that none of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party at Sl.No.1 to 6 as stated above are applicable,in view of the decisions cited for on behalf of the Opposite Party reported inComplete Insulations (P) Ltd., V/s New India Assurance Co., Ltd., reported in (1996) 1 SCC 221 and National Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s Jai Bhagawan, reported in (2014) CPJ 640 (NC). Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint filed by the Complainant.

15.     First we have to place reliance on the contents of the decisions cited by the Opposite Party at Sl.No. 1 and 2. The Sl.No.1 decision is of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which has been referred in the second decision i.e.National Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s Jai Bhagawan. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, it would be useful to have a look on Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in the second decision at Para No.8 to 15 held as under:

8. Against that order the insurance company preferred appeal no.590/1997 before the State Commission, Behar. That appeal was allowed by order dtd.26.12.2001 by observing that Muzaffarpur District Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction and also on the ground that insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the Complainant.

9. As stated above, the second ground given by the State Commission cannot be justified in view of the India Motor Tariff Regulation. Further on this aspect learned counsel for the petitioner has produced on record the judgment rendered by the Chhattisgarh State Commission in the case of Ajimuddin v. The New India Assurance co., ltd., reported in III (2006) CPJ 273=2006 (2) CPR 124, wherein the commission has observed in paragraph 7 as under:

‘Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that GIC has issued special instructions regarding settlement of claim in case of transfer of policy. It was submitted that as per the said instructions the transfer of policy in favour of the purchaser the Complainant/appellant should be treated as automatic. It appears that the Tariff Advisory Committe issued a circular regarding automatic transfer of the policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle. In the said circular the decision of Supreme Court in Complete Insulations Pvt. ltd., v. New India Assurance co., ltd., was referred to. In the said circular it was stated that for policies issued as per revised Motor Tariff, own damage claim which fall within the purview of GR10 provisions may be settled in full subject to the other terms & conditions of the policy.”

10. In this view of the matter, the insurance company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not transferred in favour of the Complainant. In any set of circumstances, even u/s.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act transfer application is to be made within a period of 14 days and those 14 days were not over in the present case. Hence, in our view, it is highly improper and unjustified act on the part of the insurance company to reject the claim on such ground and harass the Complainant for years together.

11. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction of Muzaffarpur District Forum, it is to be stated that Complainant resides at Muzaffarpur and using the said vehicle at Muzaffarpur, the accident took place in District Patna and the insurance company is having branch office at Muzaffarpur. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that District Forum, Muzaffarpur was not having any territorial jurisdiction.

12.In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is restored. The insurance company is directed to pay the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 01.01.1996 i.e. after six months from the date of the accident to the Complainant within six weeks from today.

13. Because such stand is taken by the insurance company in number of cases, insurance company is directed to pay punitive costs of Rs.1 lakh u/s.14(1)(d) for taking unjustified stand in not disclosing the India Motor Tariff Regulation which was applicable in the present case. The said amount shall be deposited with the Registrar of this commission, who in turn,  shall transfer the same in the Consumer legal aid account.

14. It is further directed that insurance companies would be careful in not taking such stand which is contrary to the regulations framed by the Indian Motor Tariff and Insurance Regulatory Development Authority.

15. It is high time for insurance companies to give information with regard to the India Motor Tariff to the insurers and not to take undue advantage of their ignorance as the regulations framed under the India Motor Tariff are binding to the insurance companies.

Ongoing through the contents of the above paragraphs, it is evident that on reading of Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulations, it is clear that in the case of package insurance policy, the transfer of “Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee shall be done by the insurance company in case specific request in writing is made by the transferee of the vehicle within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership.  Undisputedly, in the instant case, the accident took place before the expiry period of 14 days for applying for transfer of insurance as provided under Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulations. Therefore, the question which needs answer is whether in such a situation de hars transfer of policy in his name, the Complainant is entitled to the benefit under the insurance company i.e. Opposite Party herein and the previous owner? The answer to the above question is in-built in GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulations. The said rule provides that the transfer of “own Damage” section of the insurance policy shall be made in favour of the transferee only on specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. Thus, it is evident that the transfer of the insurable interest under the “own damage” package section of the policy can be done only with the consent of the transferor.

          16.     We have noticed that the original owner named Mr.Manjunath J.S. was not made as a party to the complaint. Available material on record goes to show that from the date of transfer i.e.from 10.6.2014 to till date of accident on 19.6.2014,no efforts have been made by the Complainant to get transferred the insurance in his name. Even if the accident took place before the expiry of 14 days period from the date of transfer of ownership, the Complainant could easily have applied for transfer of ownership with requisite consent letter of previous owner within the requisite period despite of the accident because insurance cover under the policy still existed. In the instant case there is nothing on record to suggest that the consent of the previous owner i.e.Mr.Manjunath J.S. was submitted along with claim form. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party was well within its right to repudiate the claim on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the insurance company and the Complainant. In this context, the decisions cited by the Opposite Party reported in (2014) CPJ 640 (NC) with reference to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (1) SCC 221 is applicable to the contention taken by the Opposite Party. Hence, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Complainant at Sl.No. 1 to 4 passed by NCDRC and also Sl.No.6 citation passed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay F.A.No.194/2011 are not applicable,as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding onall the sub-ordinate courts including High Court and NCDRC under article 141 of the Constitution. Further, another decision cited by the learned counsel is at Sl.No.5 reported       (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 724 Om Prakash V/s Reliance General Inc Co., Ltd.,The said decision is in respect of delayed report of theft to the concerned police station and the concerned insurance company. The facts of the said decision are quite different to the present case on hand. Hence with due regard to the said decision same is not applicable.

          17.     In view of the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (1) SCC 221 and also NCDRC decision in (2014) CPJ 640 (NC) wherein the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (1) SCC 221 has been relied upon,we come to conclusion that the claim repudiated by the Opposite Party is justified. Hence, we do not find any laxity much less deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, we answered the Point No.1 in the negative.

          18.     POINT NO.2:In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismisseddevoid of merits.

Looking into the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open forum on 19^thMay2018).

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER	(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

         

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Madhusudhan S.R., who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Insurance policy stands in the name of Manjunath J.S.
Ex-A2	Notarized copy of the R.C.relating to Maruthi Swift car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AD-1411
Ex-A3	Insurance Policy stands in the name of the Complainant
Ex-A4	Certified copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-A5	Certified copy of the Motor Vehicles Accident report (IMV Report)
Ex-A6	Estimation given by Shruti Motors for Rs.6,10,910/-
Ex-A7	Receipt for having paid a sum of Rs.4,494/- towards the parking charges
Ex-A8	Notarized copy of the permit in respect of the Maruthi Swift car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AD-1411
Ex-A9	4 letters issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex-A10	Letter dt.27.3.2015 written by the Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex-A11	Postal receipt and acknowledgement

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

Smt.MadhumatiHegde., Assistant Manager (Legal)who being the Opposite Party was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party

 

Doc-1	True copy of the insurance policy issued in favour of Mr.Manjunath J.S.
Doc-2	True copy of the insurance policy issued in favour of Mr.Madhusudhan
Doc-3	Copy of claim form submitted by Complainant
Doc-4	Copy of spot survey report dt.13.8.2014
Doc-5	Copy of preliminary survey report dt.28.8.2014
Doc-6-10	Copy of letter dt.29.12.2014, 12.2.2015, 6.3.2015, 18.3.2015, 29.12.2014 sent by OP to Complainant

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT