Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/80/2016

Sri B.Rudrappa S/o Bhadrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.A.M.Rudramuni

04 Feb 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:22/08/2016

DISPOSED      ON:04/02/2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 80/2016

 

DATED:  4^th FEBRUARY 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt.B. Rudrappa, S/o Bhadrappa, Owner of JCB bearing Reg. No.KA-16/M-3698, R/o JCR Extension, 2nd Cross, Chitradurga Town.   (Rep by Sri.A.M.Rudramuni, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, By its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Maganuru Petrol Bunk, P.B. Road,Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay ID value of Rs.9,50,000/-, toeing charges of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards charges for the vehicle kept in idle, in total Rs.10,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a  and such others reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the RC owner of the JCB bearing Reg. No. KA-16 M-3698 and the same was purchased in the year 2008 for livelihood and the same was insured with the OP for the period from 14.03.205 to 13.03.2006 covering with the third party risk, PA for owner/driver for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which covers the own damage of the vehicle for an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-.  It is further submitted that, the said JCB has met with a fire accident on 11.04.2015 at about 1.00 PM in the land of Ashokappa S/o Eshwarappa and in the said accident, the JCB was entirely damaged.  For that the complainant has intimated the same to the OP by telephone.  For that, the OP insurance company has appointed one surveyor and he conducted the survey.  After the occurrence of the accident, the complainant has lodge a complaint to the concerned Rural Police Station, Chitradugra and the said police conducted a mahazar.  It is further submitted that, the said JCB has met with an accident due to mechanical defects and the said vehicle was entirely damaged.  For that, the complainant has given RC, DL of the Driver Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa and also Police documents to the OP.  Surprisingly on 30.08.2015, the OP Company has issued a letter to the complainant stating that, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy hence, for the said reason the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant.  The act and conduct of the OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant is without proper reasons and they have made deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant.  It is further submitted that, as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the OP has to settle the claim on non-standard basis.  It is further submitted that, the OP cannot repudiate the claim for only the reason that, the complainant’s vehicle was running under temporary registration.  This act and conduct of the OP is not proper, they are not act like a prudent man and it leads that, the intention of the OP is only to drag on the proceedings for settlement of the claim.  Ultimately, the complainant suffered from mental agony and loss which in terms of money and in this regard he has sustained loss more than Rs.1,00,000/-.  The attitude of the OP amounts to deficiency of service and further the complainant has not violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  Even otherwise, if the complainant violated any terms and conditions of the policy, the OP has to settle the claim on non-standard basis as per well settled Principles of Law.  The OP is violated the Principles of Natural Justice.  The OP insurance company has taken the documents from the complainant like DL of Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa and also not settled the claim.  The complainant has not committed any mistake in intimating about the accident to the OP.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 11.04.2015 the date on which the vehicle met with an accident and subsequently, the complainant got issued notice to the OP on 30.08.2015.  The complaint is well in time.   The OP is having the Branch Office at Chitradurga within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint with cost. 

3.      On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. B.M. Ravi Chandra, Advocate and filed version denying the allegations made in para-2 to 9 of the complaint.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  It is further stated that, OP has issued policy to the Telco Construction Equipment bearing Reg. No.KA-16 M-3698 valid for the period from 14.03.2015 to 13.03.2016 in favour of one B. Rudrappa S/o Bhadrappa covering own damage for ID value for an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- and also covering third party injury, third party property damage as per the Act.  It is further submitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 11.04.2015 at about 1-00 PM and the same was intimated to the OP through claim form on 17.04.2015 by producing necessary documents i.e., DL of Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa, policy copy, RC copy of the Fire Brigade Certificate, Xerox copy of complaint given by the complainant to the Chitradurga Rural Police and also with Xerox copy of Adhar Card.  After receiving of the entire documents from the complainant and has obtained Criminal Court papers from their investigator and after receipt of the report from the investigator, the OP came to the knowledge that Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa was not the Driver but, Narasimhaswamy S/o Durgappa was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident. But, the complainant misrepresented and instead of giving DL of Narasimhaswamy S/o Durgappa, the complainant has given DL of Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa where he was not the Driver of the vehicle on the date of accident.  Further, it is submitted that, the complainant has misrepresented the OP stating that, Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa was the Driver on the date of fire accident.  But the Driver of the JCB on the date of fire accident date 11.04.2015 was one Narasimhaswamy S/o Durgappa, he did not have DL to drive construction equipment license i.e., JCB and also he did not have any DL on the date of accident.  It is a violation of terms and conditions of MV Act.  Hence, for that, the complainant has misrepresented the OP insurance company to get the claim. It is further submitted that, the OP has issued a notice to the complainant through RPAD on 30.08.2015 stating that, on 11.04.2015, the complainant has intimated towards loss of his vehicle under policy No.1406552343000340 and we have gone through the documents submitted by the complainant.  On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant, it is observed that, the DL of Mr. Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa was submitted for the purpose of claim.  Whereupon an investigation, it is confirmed that, Narasimhaswamy S/o Durgappa was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident and the same is evident from the investigation report and video recording.  Further, the OP requesting the complainant to produce DL of Mr. Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa which is not yet produced.  As the facts relating to the Driver are misrepresented, it is a violation of policy condition No.1 which reproduced below.

Condition No.1:  Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident, loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.

 

In the light of the above for mis-representation of facts and violation of policy condition No.1, the claims stand repudiated.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.               

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-8 were got marked. On behalf of OP, one Sri. H.B. Guruprasad, S/o Basavarajaiah, the Manager, Legal has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to     B-6 documents have been got marked.  

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of JCB bearing Reg. No. KA-16 M-3698 and the same was purchased in the year 2008 for his livelihood and the same was insured with the OP for the period from 14.03.205 to 13.03.2006 covering with the third party risk, PA for owner/driver for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which also covers own damage of the vehicle for an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-.  The said JCB has met with a fire accident on 11.04.2015 at about 1.00 PM in the land of Ashokappa S/o Eshwarappa and the JCB was entirely damaged.  Complainant has intimated the same to the OP over telephone but, the OP insurance company has appointed a surveyor, who conducted the survey.  After the occurrence of the accident, the Rural Police, Chitradurgra conducted a mahazar.  The said JCB met with an accident due to mechanical defects and the said vehicle was entirely damaged.  The complainant claimed compensation by producing claim form by giving RC, DL of the Driver Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa and also Police documents to the OP.   On 30.08.2015, the OP Company repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy, which is a deficiency of service in not settling the claim of the complainant.  As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the OP has to settle the claim on non-standard basis and it cannot repudiate the claim only for the reason that, the complainant’s vehicle was running under temporary registration.  The act and conduct of the OP is not proper, they are not acted like a prudent man and it leads that, the intention of the OP is only to drag on the proceedings for settlement of the claim which caused mental agony and loss which in terms of money.  Even otherwise, if the complainant violated any terms and conditions of the policy, the OP has to settle the claim on non-standard basis as per well settled Principles of Law.  The OP has violated the Principles of Natural Justice.  The OP insurance company has taken the documents from the complainant like DL of Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa but, not settled the claim.  The complainant has not committed any mistake for intimating the accident to the OP.   

9.      In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like True copy of FIR marked as Ex.A-1, True copy of the complaint lodged by the complainant marked as Ex.A-2, True copy of Panchnama marked as Ex.A-3, True copy of the report submitted PSI, Rural Police Station, Chitradurga to the Executive Officer, Chitradurga Taluk marked as Ex.A-4, True copy of the report of Firing Officer marked as Ex.A-5, Photos concerned to the burnt vehicle marked as Ex.A-6, True copy of the letter dated 30.08.2015 given to the complainant by OP marked as Ex.A-7 and True copy of Policy marked as Ex-8.

10.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OP that, they have issued policy to the Telco Construction Equipment bearing Reg. No.   KA-16 M-3698 valid for the period from 14.03.2015 to 13.03.2016 in favour of one B. Rudrappa S/o Bhadrappa covering own damage for an ID value of Rs.9,50,000/- and also covering third party injury, third party property damage as per the Act.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 11.04.2015 at about 1-00 PM and the same was intimated to the OP through claim form on 17.04.2015 by producing necessary documents and after receiving of the entire documents from the complainant and Criminal Court papers from their Investigator and after receipt of the report from the investigator, the OP came to the knowledge that Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa was not the Driver but, Narasimhaswamy S/o Durgappa was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident, where Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa was not the Driver of the JCB on the date of fire accident on 11.04.2015 and one Narasimhaswamy S/o Durgappa was the driver, he did not have DL to drive construction equipment license i.e., JCB and also he did not have any DL on the date of accident, which is a violation of terms and conditions of MV Act. As the facts relating to the Driver are misrepresented, it is the violation of policy condition No.1 which reads that, Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident, loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. In the light of the above for mis-representation of facts and violation of policy condition No.1, the claim stands repudiated. 

11.    In support of its contention, the OP has filed affidavit evidence of Sri. H.B Guruprasad, Manager (Legal), has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like copy of Insurance policy marked as Ex.B-1, copy of claim form marked as Ex.B-2, repudiation letter dated 30.08.2015 to the complainant by the OP marked as Ex.   B-3, report by the Rural Police, Chitradurga marked as Ex.B-4, Statement by the PSI, Rural Police, Chitradurga marked as Ex.B-5 and Postal Receipt  marked as Ex.B-6. 

12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant has taken insurance policy for his JCB bearing Reg. No.KA-16/M-3698 from the OP for the period from 14.03.2015 to 13.03.2016 covering the third party, PA for owner/Driver for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and also covering own damage of the vehicle for an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-.  The said vehicle met with fire accident on 11.04.2015 and entirely damaged.  The complainant intimated about the accident to the OP and also claimed compensation by producing all the necessary documents but, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy, which is without proper reasons.  As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, when there is a violation of policy terms and conditions and M.V. Act, the insurance company has to settle the claim on non-standard basis.      The Advocate for the complainant has relied on a decision reported in 2008 SAR (Civil) 484 (SC) in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nitin Khandelwal which reads as under:-

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Terms of insurance policy – Theft of vehicle – Breach of conditions is not germane – Respondent, owner of the vehicle sent his vehicle to bring his children – On the way, some unknown people stopped the vehicle, tied the driver and snatched away the vehicle – Report was lodged by driver – Insurance claim – Rejected by Insurance company – Appellant’s version was that vehicle was being used as a taxi – The vehicle was insured for personal use – Complaint – Dismissed by District Forum – Appeal – State Commission observed that claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis and allowed the appeal – Revision – Dismissed by National Commission upholding the order of the State Commission – Legality of – Theft of the car – Vehicle has not been recovered – Nature of use of the vehicle can not be looked into – Whether Insurance Company was justified in rejecting the claim – Held : No.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another case at para 9 and 10 reported in (2003) 6 SCC 420 observed as under:-

It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to an acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e., damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver. 

It is the case of the parties that the fire in question which caused damage to the vehicle occurred due to mechanical failure and not due to any fault or act, or omission of the driver. 

          Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim of the appellant. Therefore, the citation quoted by the complainant is applicable to the case on hand. It clearly goes to show that, the OP has committed a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in settling the claim made by the complainant.  Further the OP has been admitted that, the policy was in force as on the date of accident.  When the policy was in force, it is the bounden duty of the OP to settle the claim of the insured/complainant.  But, herein the OP has taken a contention that, at the time of accident, one Narasimhaswamy S/o Durgappa was driving the JCB as per the statement recorded by the Police but, the documents produced by the complainant and OP clearly goes to show that, one Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa was the driver of the said JCB at the time of accident.  Moreover, the OP called for the records from the complainant in its requisition asking the complainant to produce DL of the Driver Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa.  In this point also, the OP is having knowledge about the said Narasimhaswamy S/o Chandrappa was the Driver at the time of accident.  It clearly goes to show that, the complainant was not violating any terms and conditions imposed by the OP in its policy.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP and the complainant is to be compensated on non-standard basis after depreciation.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a no deficiency of service on the part of OP/insurance Company.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,12,500/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards toeing charges, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earing, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 04/02/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. H.B. Guruprasad, Manager (Legal) of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	True copy of FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	True copy of the complaint lodged by the complainant
03	Ex-A-3:-	True copy of Panchnama
04	Ex-A-4:-	True copy of the report submitted PSI, Rural Police Station, Chitradurga to the Executive Officer, Chitradurga Taluk
05	Ex-A-5:-	True copy of the report of Firing Officer
06	Ex-A-6:-	Photos concerned to the burnt vehicle
07	Ex-A-7:-	True copy of the repudiation letter dated 30.08.2015
08	Ex.A-8:-	True copy of Policy

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Copy of Insurance policy
02	Ex-B-2:-	Copy of claim form
03	Ex-B-3:-	Repudiation letter dated 30.08.2015
04	Ex.B-4:-	Report by the Rural Police, Chitradurga
05	Ex.B-5:-	Statement by the PSI, Rural Police, Chitradurga
06	Ex.B-6:-	Postal Receipt

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**