Complaints filed on: 11-07-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 03-06-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

          DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF JUNE 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

CC.No.111/2022

1.       C. Lokesh S/o Chandraiah

Age: 43 years, No.436,

Panchasilanagar, 1^st Main Road,

Mudlapalya Circle, Nagarabhavi

Main Road, Near Brilliant School,

Bangalore.

2.       Diwakar S/o Marulasiddaiah,

          Age: 33 years, Honnashettihalli,

          Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli

          Taluk, Tumkur District.

……….Complainant

(By Sri. Kishor .R, Adv.,)

V/s

TATA-AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Sunni Center, 1^st Floor, No.374,

New Kalidasa Road, Vijayanagar,

1^st Phase, Mysore.

……….Opposite Party

(By Sri. N.V. Naveen Kumar, Adv.,)

:ORDER:

BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.3,86,273/- along with interest @ 18% PA from 16.01.2019 towards repair of the car.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The complainant is the owner of INDICA CAR bearing registration No.KA-02-AE-7138 and the said car was insured with the OP.  The complainant No.2 is the fried of complainant No.1 and hence the complainant No.1 handed over the car to the complainant No.2.  When such being the case, the car driven by the Megaraj fell down into the ditch due to rash and negligence driving of the driver near the bridge at Baraguru-Otikere road and thereby the car got fully damaged.  The complainant No.2 has given a complaint in this regard to Handanakere Police Station and a case was registered under crime No.8/2019 for the offence punishable U/s 279 of IPC and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted to the Court.    It is further submitted that after inspection by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, the complainant left the vehicle at SRI AUTO SHOWROOM, TUMKUR as per the instruction of OP.  Thereafter the showroom has given estimation of Rs.3,86,273/- towards repair of the car and hence the complainant claimed the said amount with the OP.  But the OP did not give any response.  Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the MACT and the opposite party has raised objection that the said court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case, the MACT has returned the case to the complainant at his request and filed before this Commission.  The driver has valid license at the time accident of the car and policy was also valid during the time of accident.  The OP has not settled the genuine claim of the complainants.  Hence, the complaint.  

3.       After receipt of notice, the OP appeared through its counsel and filed the version contending that the complainant’s vehicle bearing registration No.KA-02-AE-7138 was insured with them vide policy No.0158258046 valid from 28.05.2018 to 27.05.2019 and covers the risk subject to the terms and conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmations of compliance of section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938.  It is further contended that the OP has received claim intimation on 24.01.2019 and immediately after receipt of the claim, the OP has appointed IRDAI approved licensed surveyor Mr.Girish .M to inspect and assess the damages caused to the insured vehicle and the said surveyor has assessed the damages and submitted report on 05.02.2019 and assessed the loss at Rs.2,56,146/- which is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further contended that in the FIR owner name is written as Divakar and as per the RC and policy, Mr.Locksh is owner of the insured vehicle.  Hence, there is a discrepancy as far as name of the owner mentioned in the FIR and the actual owner of the insured vehicle. 

          The OP further contended that   as per FIR the complainant No.2 has purchased the vehicle from complainatn No.1 three months earlier to the date of accident, but the complainant No.2 has not got transferred the RC and policy to his name. The purchaser has to get the transfer of RC and to intimate the insurance company within 14 days of such transfer to avail the benefits under the policy.  This is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further contended that there is no contract between the OP and complainant No.2 as the policy continued to be in the name of complainant No.1 and complainant No.1 has no insurable interest over the subject matter at the time of loss.  Hence, they have repudiated the claim of the complainant for want of insurable interest as per the GR 17 of IMT.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.  On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.  

4.   The complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit evidence.  The complainants marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C8.  One Mr.Vinay Kumar .S, Senior Manager, Legal Dept, has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP.  The OP got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R7.   

5.       We have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant and OP.

6.       On perusal of pleadings and documents produced by the parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?

2. Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?

7.       Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2: As per the final order.

:REASONS:

8.       The admitted facts between the parties are:

1. The complainant is the registered owner of INDICA car bearing registration No:KA:02:AE:7138 and had obtained general insurance policy No.0158258046.   The policy was in force from 28.05.2018 to 27.05.2019,

2. The complainant No.2 is the friend of complainant No.1 and complainant No.1 handed over the car to the complainant No.2,

3. The vehicle in question was driven by the Megaraj, fell down in to the ditch due to rash and negligence driving of the driver near the bridge at Baraguru-Otikere road and thereby the car got fully damaged,

4. The Handanakere Police have registered a case in crime No.8/2019 for the offence punishable u/s 279 of IPC and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted to the court, and

5. As per the instruction of OP, the complainant left the vehicle @ SRI Auto Showroom, Tumkur and Showroom has given estimation of Rs.3,86,273/- towards repairs of the car.  The complainant claimed the said amount with the OPs.  The driver has a valid license at the time of accident of the car and policy was also valid and in force during the time of accident. 

9.       The main contention of the complainant is that though the complainant is having valid insurance policy and the policy was in force at the time of accident.  On the contrary, the OP taken a contention that, the OP has received a claim intimation on 24.01.2019 and immediately after receipt of the claim, the OP has appointed licensed surveyor Mr.Girish to inspect and assess the damages and he was submitted report on 05.02.2019 by assessing the loss at 2,56,146/-.  The OP further contended that in the FIR owner name is written as Divakar and as per the R.C. and policy Mr.Lokesh is owner of the insured vehicle.  Hence, there is a discrepancy as far as name of the owner mentioned in the FIR and the actual owner of the insured vehicle, hence, repudiated the claim.  On perusal of the exhibits of the complainant and OP, it is seen that, as per FIR, the complainant No.2 has purchased the vehicle form complainant No.1 03 months earlier to the date of accident, but the complainant No.2 has not got transferred the RC and policy to his name.  The purchaser has to get transfer of RC and to intimate the insurance company within 14 days of such transfer to avail the benefits under the policy.  But, it is not done, then it is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  The policy continued to be in the name of complainant No.1 and there is no privity of contract between the OP and complainant No.2.  At the time of loss, complainant No.1 has no insurable interest over vehicle.     

10.     The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case between IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. ANIL 2022(2) CPR 527, had applied the guidelines set-out by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in the case between New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Narayana Prasad Appaprasad Pathak, wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, has set out the guidelines regarding settling of all non standard claims as under:

Considering the above citation and facts and circumstances involved in the instant case, it is just and proper to direct the OP to settle the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis.  

11.     The surveyor has assessed the losses at Rs.2,56,146/-.  The complainant has not produced the actual repair bills.  Under the circumstances and considering the above citations, it is just and proper to award 70% of the amount assessed by the surveyor, which comes to Rs.1,79,302/-.   Hence, the OP is directed to pay Rs.1,79,302/- along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of repudiation i.e., 29.03.2019 to till realization to the complainants.  Further for the act of OP, the complainants compelled to approach this Commission.  Hence, the OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-   

:ORDER:

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

The OP is directed to pay Rs.1,79,302/- along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of repudiation i.e. 29.03.2019 to till realization to the complainants.

The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainants. 

The OP is directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties