JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Amaresh.S. S/o. Shivappa against the Opposite Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for direct the opposite to pay a sum of Rs. 2,64,600/- compensation with interest, and towards shock and mental agony and cost with other reliefs as deems fit to this circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, the complainant is the owner and possessor and RC Holder of TATA AC vehicle bearing No. KA-36/8951 and the same was insured with the Respondent company vide policy No. 1412782334002328 dt. 10-11-08, for the period from 10-11-08 to 09-11-09. The said insurance policy is comprehensive policy and package policy for commercial vehicle which covers third party damage as well as damage to the vehicle etc., The said vehicle was met with an accident on 06-03-09, when one Ningappa of K. Thimmapur village was hired the vehicle and carrying the load of straw from Pammankallur village to his filed at about 10-00 p.m. The said accident was occurred due to electric shock circuit and vehicle was caught fire as the main electric wire was lying down. The vehicle was completely burnt. The Kowthal Police have registered the case under fire accident No. 4/09 and conducted the Panchanama. Soon after the accident the complainant has informed the Respondent Company about the accident and vehicle damage. The Respondent Company suggested submitting the claim form along with all other documents, accordingly complainant submitted the same along with estimation for the repair of vehicle from Bhagyodhaya Trokhos Pvt. Ltd., Hospet, to the tune of Rs. 2,64,600/- to the Respondent. Further it is the case of the complainant that, instead of settling the claim intentionally Respondent issued the letter on. 02-06-09 stating that, the claim of the complainant is closed as at the time of accident exceeds the seating capacity and the vehicle registration is not valid etc,. The complainant further contended that, the complainant has not violated any condition and terms of the policy and used the vehicle according to the policy terms and conditions. The policy was in force and existence. It is the bounden duty of the insurance company to pay compensation. But, even in-spite of several requested the Respondent Company has not taken any steps to settle the claim, on the other hand by giving false reason rejected the claim, so this act of the Respondent is nothing but, a deficiency in service, hence he sought the compensation as prayed in the prayer. 3. The Respondent Insurance Company appeared in this case through its Advocate and filed written version by denying the use of the vehicle by the complainant, caught fire due to electric shock circuit, the damage to the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle was holding valid driving licence at the time and date of accident, about the information regarding accident, the Respondent Company informed the complainant to submit claim forms and accordingly the complainant has submitted the claim forms and estimation for the repair of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 2,64,600/-. Further it is the case of the Respondent that, the driver of the vehicle was having only LMV & HTV, knowing fully the complainant has permitted the driver to drive the vehicle at the time of date and time of accident, this is nothing but a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. At the time of accident there were four persons traveling in the goods vehicle in question but as per the RC Book permitting seating capacity is only 1+1 this is violation of the clause No.3 and coming under the preview of the Workmens Compensation Act 1923. Further it is contended that, the vehicle was having no valid registration and on that day it was un fit to fly this is totally violation of the Motor Vehicle Act and policy terms and conditions. It is also contended that, the KEB Authorities are the necessary party because the live wire are let loosely hanging at the distance of 10 feet away from the surface level and for their negligence the incident took place, for that they are liable to answer the claim of the complainant. Under the above circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for the claim and sought for dismissal of the same with exemplary cost and interest. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, his TATA ACE bearing No. KA-36/8951 insured with Respondent Insurance company met with fire accident due to electric shock on 06-03-09 at abut 10-00 p.m. while transposing the straw to the field of Lingappa of K.Thimmapur village from Pamankallur, whether the insurance policy was in force, his vehicle and loaded straw was completely burnt, the complainant has used the vehicle according to the terms and conditions of the policy, the driver of the vehicle was holding valid driving licence, he informed the accident to opposite, thereafter he filed claim petition but opposite is not settled his claim inspite of repeated oral and written requests, opposite is negligent in settling his claim and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed and he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. 7. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Deputy Legal Manager of Opposite Insurance Company was filed and he was noted as RW-1. The only one document filed by the Respondent is marked at Ex.R-1. 8. There is no dispute by the opposite that the complainant is the owner of the Vehicle bearing No. KA-36/8951, coverage of insurance policy and its in force, accident of the said vehicle on 06-03-09 at about 11-00 p.m. while carrying the load of straw from Pamankallur to the village of one Ningappa i.e, K. Thimmapur. 9. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties that to more particularly from the pleadings of the Respondent insurance company, it is very clear that, the Respondent insurance company has raised four points in their defence are:- 1. The driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the light goods carrying vehicle. 2. Violation of Clause No.3 of the RC Book by exceeding the seating capacity of the vehicle. 3. On the date of accident the vehicle in question was not having valid registration. 4. The alleged accident is occurred only due to the negligence of the KEB and they are responsible for the same but they have not party to the proceedings. 10. In order to substantiate the case of opposite and defence as raised under these points the opposite insurance company mainly depending upon the Ex.R-1 i.e, Insurance Policy wherein some of the important terms and conditions are mentioned regarding the claims are concerned. Of course those are the terms and conditions much more necessary to consider the claims under the policy but it is also further more important on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company to show about the violation of the those terms and conditions mentioned under the policy. But here in this case, the Respondent Insurance Company has raised all the possible terms and conditions for to repudiate the policy without any documents to show that, they have been violated and their defence raised under the above mentioned points mentioned under 1, 2, & 3. On the contrary the complainant has produced Ex.P-8 i.e, endorsement issued by the RTO Raichur which is clearly speaks about the class of vehicle for which driving licence have been issued to the driver who drives the vehicle. The said document discloses about the valid driving licence of the driver one who is driving the vehicle at the time and date of accident. Hence defence raised under the Point No-1 by the Respondent cannot be sustainable. 11. Further, if we come to the defence raised under Point No-2 & 3 we will not find any reasons to believe that those defences are proper and believable one, because the complainant has produced some of the documents under Ex.P-3, Ex.P-3(1) and Ex.P-4. It appears that, merely relying upon these documents the Respondent has raised these two points, on perusal of the said documents there is no mentioning about the fault on the part of the complainant and there is no case against him that, he used the vehicle with more seating capacity and violated the Clause No.3 of the RC Book and IMV Act 1988 regarding registration of the vehicle is concerned. 12. It is worth while to note here that, one Ningappa S/o.Dyavappa has given his statement before the police as per Ex.P-3. In the said Ex.P-3 he has stated that, there were three persons present at the time and date of accident and all three were on the ground and watching the vehicle and shouted about the touching of live wire to the loaded straw. From this it is very clear that, the vehicle at the time and date of accident was carrying only one person i.e, driver and not more than that, under such circumstances it cannot be believed that vehicle was carrying more than seating capacity as contended by the Respondent in under Point No-2. 13. If we come to the Point No-3, where the defence has taken about the violation of registration rules and the vehicle has been used without any valid registration on the time and date of accident. The Ex.P-2 the registration certificate issued by the registering authority clearly speaks that, the vehicle has been registered on 07-03-09 under registration No. KA-36/8951. Further it discloses about the ownership and date of its effect. The said document is also further discloses about registered laden weight and payment of tax etc., Further from the Ex.P-4 the letter written by the Kowthal Police to Tahasildar Manvi, it is also very clear that there is no such violation or case has been made out in this regard from the police. Under such circumstances the defence raised under this Point by the Respondent holds no good. 14. Further, if we observed the defence raised under the Point No-4 by the Respondent here also we do not find any reasons to believe that, there is proper and valid grounds to believe that, their defence holds any good reasons. Because in the said defence the Respondent has held that, there is negligence on the part of the KEB and for that, the KEB is a responsible to answer the claim of the complainant. But the complainant has not made KEB party to the proceedings. Of course, no doubt the alleged accident has been taken place due to the short circuit of electric live wire which is alleged to be loosely hanged by the KEB about 10 feet from the earth. But on perusal of the Ex.P-4, the letter written by the PSI Kowthal to the Manvi Tahasildar is clearly speaks about the accident and discloses that, the accident has been occurred accidentally and not for the negligence of any others. Further the claim of the complainant is on the basis of the insurance policy where in he has taken insurance for the vehicle and not for the life of any person for which KEB can be made responsible. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reasons to believe that, the KEB is a necessary party to answer the claim of the complainant. Under such circumstances the version of the Respondent cannot be accepted. Hence we have rejected the defences raised under the Points Nos. 1 to 4 of the Respondent Company. Since the policy is in force and the vehicle has been used under the terms and conditions of the policy the Respondent Company is liable to compensate the loss occurred due to the accident. But the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim to Ex.P-6 this is nothing but negligence on the part of the Respondent Company. Hence we hold that there is a deficiency on the part of the Respondent in settling the claim of the complainant. So we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 15. The complainant has sought total compensation of Rs. 2,64,600/- with interest, cost of Rs. 25,000/- against the Respondent. The complainant has produced estimation under Ex.P-5 to show the total expenditure to get repair the vehicle involved under the accident and to show about the damages. Except this no bills produced by the complainant. But from the perusal of Ex.P-4 the police letter discloses that, the loss to the vehicle is only to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- and straw worth Rs. 1,500/- in all they have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 81,500/-. Under these circumstances, if we have considered the estimation produced by the complainant under Ex.P-5 the claim of the complainant is excessive and exorbitant one. No survey report has been produced in order to ascertain the loss. Under such circumstances on the basis of the loss ascertained by the police and photos produced at Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-7(4) in respect of damages of the vehicle is concerned, we have come to the conclusion that, to award the global compensation of Rs. 80,000/- towards damage of the vehicle which is proper and just. 16. Regarding the interest is concerned, the complainant has not sought any rate of interest but under the facts and circumstances of the case and damages to the vehicle of the complainant is concerned, and we have granted only 9% interest on the total compensation from the date of filing of the complaint. 17. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Insurance Company as such we have granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- which is recoverable by the complainant from the Opposite under the head of deficiency in service. 18. As regards to the cost of litigation is concerned, the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost from Opposite Insurance Company. POINT NO.3:- 19. In view of our finding on Point Nos-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 85,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the Respondent Insurance Company. Respondent Insurance Company is hereby given one month time from the date of the judgement for to make payment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 07-04-10) Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi, Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
