Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/549/2019

Sri Devaraju.R, S/o Rangappa.K, - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sri R.N.Parthalinga

15 Jul 2020

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:18/09/2019

DISPOSED      ON:15/07/2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:549/2019

DATED: 15^th July 2020

PRESENT :-     Smt. H.N. MEENA.      …. PRESIDENT

                                B.A., LL.B.,              

                     Smt. B.H. YASHODA            ....MEMBER

                                B.A., LL.B.,

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	(Rep., by Sri. R.N. Parthalinga, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	National Insurance Company Limtied, Represented by its Branch Manager, national Insurance Company Limited, P.B. Road, Jagaluru Mahalingappa Towers, Chitradurga Town.   (Rep., by Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate OP)

Pronounced on 15^th July 2020

Written by Smt. H.N. MEENA, President.

ORDERS

1.   This is a complaint of alleged deficiency of service filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 by Devaraju R. the Complainant against the Opposite party (for short ‘OP’) praying to award Rs.3,84,920/- towards damage caused to the vehicle and Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation towards loss, mental agony with interest at the rate of 18 % p.a  and also  cost of the proceeding - etc.

The complaint:-

2.   The complaint in brief is that the complainant is the absolute owner of TATA Motors Car Bearing Registration  No:KA-16/C-3295. It is the case of the complainant that he had also insured the said vehicle in the office of the OP and for which the OP has collected the premium and issued Policy bearing No:5270031176360044477, which is valid from 25/07/2017 to 24/07/2018. It is the further case of the complainant that on 09/12/2017 at about 3.00 pm. Devapuradahatti Village Bridge, NH-13 Road, Chitradurga  same time the driver of the car has lost the control  of the Case and dashed to the road side Bridge of the road. Further, the complainant has alleged that, there was a complaint given before the jurisdictional Police regarding the said accident and the police have registered a case in Crime No:045/2017 dated 09/12/2017 against the driver of the Car Bearing Reg., No. KA16/C-3295.

3.      Further, it is the case of the complainant that, after the said accident, the complainant has reported the same to the office of OP and in turn the OP appointed the surveyor to assess the damages caused to the vehicle and damage has been estimated Rs. 3,84,920 lakhs for repair the vehicle.  But the OP instead of settling his claim, has repudiated the claim on the ground that, violation of condition of the policy at the time of accident, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On these grounds, the complainant has prayed to allow the complaint by claiming a total compensation.

4.   After hearing on admission the complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OP to file its written versions under section 13(2)  of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (in short “the Act). The OP  has appeared through its counsel and filed written version.

Defense:

5.   The OP has resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version, wherein, the Respondent, except admitting that, the complainant has obtained a policy bearing No:55270031176360044477, which is valid from 25/07/2017 to 24/07/2018, has denied all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint as false and baseless. The OP contended that, the complainant has obtained Commercial car package policy and at the time of accident the vehicle was used for Hire and Reward and further, the complainant has not immediately informed the accident to them and he has intimated the accident. Further they contended that as per the policy IDV of the vehicle is Rs.3,84,920/- but as per the survey report insurance works out Rs.3,05,979/-. As the complainant violated terms and conditions of the policy, the OP justified its repudiation of the claim made by the complainant.  Since there is no fitness certificate on the date of accident dated 09/12/2017. Since fitness certificate is valid from 03/08/2015 to 02/08/2017 to this aspect the complainant never corroborated any documents before  this Hon’ble Court to show there is valid fitness certificate to the vehicle No. KA16/C-3295 on the date of the accident.

Evidence :

6.    The complainant got himself examined as PW-1 by filing his affidavit as a part of examination in chief and also got Ex.A-1 to A-8 marked and closed the evidence.

7.  On behalf of OP one Smt. Kumuda Krishnamurthy got herself examined as RW-1 by filing her  affidavit as a part of examination in chief and also Got Ex R.1 To R.7 documents have been marked and closed the evidence.

Arguments:

8.    We have heard the complainant as well as counsel of OP and perused the written arguments filed by both side advocates.  

9.    The points that arise for our determination are;

1. Whether the complainant proves that deficiency of service on the part of opponent?

2. Whether the complainant proves that he is entitled for the relief sought?

3. What order?

10.  Our finding on the above points are as under;

       Point No.1: In the Affirmative

       Point No2: In the Affirmative

       Point No3: As per final order,

Discussion and Reasoning:

Point No.1 and 2:

 11.  There is no dispute between the parties regarding, validity of policy, payment of premium, accident Dtd: 09/12/2017 due to the said accident. EX- A.1 to A.8 also proves the above said contention of the complainant.

12.    The OP repudiated the claim of the complainant after the complainant has intimated the accident immediately as per the terms and condition of the policy and at the time of accident the vehicle was used for hire and reward.

13.   As per the FIR, charge sheet and statement of witnesses and statement of the complainant. And available police records produced  before the Hon’ble Court not shows that Police has filed charge sheet under section 39 of the moter vehicle act. Since as per the contention of the OP. Hence the ground taken by OP for repudiating claim is not justified.

14.  The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim when there is no fundamental breach of terms of the policy, because insurance is a matter of contract between the parties. The insurance is a contract between the parties and the parties are governed by the terms of the contract. The law on the subject is settled and for this purpose, we would refer to some of the decisions of the Apex Court for proper adjudication of the matter.

15.  From the settled law of Hon’ble Apex Court in recent days it is apparent that the Insurance Company cannot  repudiate the claim of the insured in case where there is a small  breach of the policy terms and condition and, in the policy copy produced by the Op it is evident that policy shows regarding violation of DL and permit only and such being the case means that IRDI itself has neglected regarding FC violation. In view of the above we hold that repudiation made by the OP is unjustified.

16.   The OP contended that the final surveyor report issued by surveyor Suryanarayana has submitted the repair estimate for Rs. 3,05,979/- was approved towards survey of vehicle. The Surveyor  appointed by the OP company assessed the loss of Rs.3,05,979/-, but as per the policy  IDV of the vehicle is Rs.3,84,920/-. On perusal of EX-A-1 it reflected that IDV of the vehicle is Rs.3,84,920/-. The complainant has stated that he has spend Rs. 3,05,979/- for repair the vehicle. But he has not produced the documents in proof of the same. As the complainant proved the damage caused to the vehicle due to the accident, it is the duty of Insurance Company to settle the actual loss when the insurance policy is in force. Non-settling the actual claim by the Insurance Company its amounts to deficiency in service towards the Complainant. Accordingly we answer point No.1 as affirmative.

Point No.2 :- 

17.    The complainant is claiming Rs. 3,05,979/- towards repair charges. IDV of the vehicle is Rs. Rs.3,84,920/-. As the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP he is entitled for Rs. 3,05,979/- has assessed by the surveyor and his survey report is at EX R-6.  Accordingly we answer point No.2 as partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3: -

18. In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2,   we pass the following; 

       // ORDER //

 

   The complaint is partly allowed.

The opposite party is directed to pay  Rs. 3,05,979/- to the complainant along with interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of final survey report dated 16/01/2018 till realization and the said award amount has to payable by OP within six weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. OP also has to  pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony and also cost of the proceeding within six weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order.  In case of non-compliance of the order the entire amount shall carry interest @ 10%  per annum from the date of final survey till its realization.

The assistant registrar is directed to send free copies of this order to the all the parties free of cost within a week from today.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this  15th July 2020)

 

MEMBER

PRESIDENT.

ANNEXURE

Witness examined for the complainant side:

 

Complainant- Sri. Devaraju R. has examined-in-chief by filing affidavit as PW1.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR with complaint statement
02	Ex-A-2:-	IMV report
03	Ex-A-3:-	Spot Mahazar
04	Ex-A-4:-	Charge Sheet
05	Ex.A-5:-	R.C. Book
06	Ex.A-6:-	Policy
07	EX.A-7:-	Permit
08	Ex.A-8:-	DL

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:- Smt. Kumuda Krishnamurthy Senior branch Manager.

Documents marked for the opponent side:

01	Ex-R-1:-	Certified copy of Policy
02	Ex-R-2:-	Original Intimation letter dated 22/12/2017
03	Ex-R-3:-	Original B Extract.
04	Ex-R-4:-	Estimation dated 20/12/2017
05	Ex.R-5:-	Claim form.
06	Ex.R-6:-	Final survey report with Photos.
07	EX.R-7:-	Repudiation letter dated 13/03/2018

 

         (H.N. MEENA)

                    President.

                                               

 

 

        (B.H. YASHODA)

                                                                        Member. 

       

Kms.