BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 24^th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to pay repair charges of Rs.2,10,037/- with interest at the rate of 18%, compounded monthly from date of receipt of payment, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards wrongful loss, mental agony caused by OP, pray for grant of cost for this proceedings and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant is owner of Maruthi Baleno vehicle bearing No.KA-03-MZ-7998, chassis No.MA3EWB22SHA290815, engine No.KA-12-MV-4225929 model 2017. The said vehicle was got insured by OP company by paying premium of Rs.12,165/- vide policy No.3100961135 dated 07.02.2022, the validity of the policy commences from 07.02.2022 to 06.02.2023 covering all type of risks as mentioned in the insurance policy.

3. Complainant stated that on 14.02.2022 the said vehicle was met with an accident and extensively damaged on Hassan to Bangalore bye-pass road, at the time of accident vehicle was driven by valid driving license holder Sri. Raghavendra. The very information was intimated to the OP. Subsequently surveyor of OP company estimated the repair cost of Rs.2,68,716/-. Complainant submitted necessary documents in claim No.7211239227 for disbursement of the amount but the OP failed to adhere the terms and conditions of the policy and informed the complainant that “we are going to purchase the vehicle treating that the same is total loss”. Complainant disputed the same and informed the OP that estimation of surveyor is exorbitant. Under such circumstances OP asked the complainant to get it repaired and claim the amount of repair charges later.

4.  Complainant stated that accordingly she approached one M/s Ultra Auto Crate Pvt. Ltd., Ram Murthy Nagar main road, Horamavu, Bangalore and got it repaired the vehicle. Complainant submits that the vehicle is in good condition at present, for that complainant spent a sum of Rs.2,10,371/- for purchase of spare parts and labor charges to M/s Ultra Auto Crate Pvt. Ltd. Complainant subsequently approached OP for payment of repair charges and other incidental charges but OP avoid to make the payment by assigning one or the other reasons, fail to give it in writing.

5. Complainant further stated in her complaint that she got issued legal notice through her counsel on 17.06.2022 calling upon OP for the payment of claim amount a sum of Rs.2,10,371/- with interest at 18% per annum compounded monthly. The said legal notice served on OP on 24.06.2022, OP neither replied to the notice nor complied the claim of the complainant. Complainant alleged that she suffered physically and mentally by the act of OP and its harassment caused mental agony. Complainant alleges that OP withholding the amount without any valid reasons, amounts to deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.

6. OP made its representation through its counsel and filed the statement of objections and denied the averments made in complaint. OP stated in the version that complaint is being premature and is not maintainable on the reasons that OP communicates to complainant by letter dated 14.03.2022 regarding the production of documents such as RC extract, driving license extract, CKYC form, original RC of the vehicle, masked Aadhaar Card, PAN card, financial foreclosure, duly filed and signed EFT form, cancelled cheque leaf with insured’s name. In the absence of the above documents OP stated the claim cannot be honored. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

7. After the stage of version the complaint is set down to adduce affidavit evidence of both parties. Accordingly complainant has adduced her affidavit evidence with 12 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. One Mr. Vinay Kumar S, senior manager of legal claims of OP company has filed his affidavit evidence along with 5 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. Both have reiterated as stated in their complaint and version respectively. Both the counsel filed their written argument and submitted their arguments. We perused the materials on record and proceed to pass the order.

8. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

9.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

10. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, this points are taken up together for common discussion.

11. It is not disputed that complainant is the owner of Maruthi Baleno bearing No.KA-03-MZ-7998. She obtained insurance policy in respect of the vehicle which has a validity period from 07.02.2022 to 06.02.2023 in a vide policy No.3100961135. As stated in the complaint, complainant’s vehicle met with accident of Hassan to Bangalore bye-pass road on 14.02.2022. At the time of accident, one Sri Raghavendra  was driving, who has valid license card, which are at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.3(d), same has been intimated to OP company as she has obtained insurance policy from OP, which is at Ex.P.2. and through the very document, disclosed that she paid premium of Rs.12,165/-. She also submitted documents in the claim No.7211239227 and requested for disbursement of claim amount. As complainant alleged that OP in-turn informed complainant that company is going to purchase the vehicle during that the same is under total loss which was not agreed by the complainant and also disputed the estimation of surveyor of OP company which was exorbitant. Complainant by giving information to the OP has approached M/s Ultra Auto Crate Pvt. Ltd., for the repair. She spent sum of Rs.2,10,371/- as a repair charges, the documents produced herewith.

12. Here the above given observation that complainant has requested the OP for disbursement of repair amount when the OP has not replied properly to the claim of the complainant, complainant got issued legal notice on 17.06.2022 demanding the same with interest. Though the legal notice has duly served on OP on 24.06.2022 which are at Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 respectively, OP did not come forward to comply the claim of the complainant as complainant alleged.

13. On perusal of the documents Ex.P.7/Ex.R.3 the letter dated 14.03.2022 addressed to complainant by OP company after the information received about the accident OP has stated in the letter that “the insured vehicle shall be treated as CTL/NOS (Net of salvage) if the aggregated cost of retrieval and  repair subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, exceeds the 75% if IDV of the vehicle and they also requested the complainant to submit RC extract, driving license extract, CKYC form, original RC of the vehicle, masked Aadhaar Card, PAN card, financial foreclosure, which is at Ex.R.3 and also intimated to clarify within 7 days from the receipt of this letter, in case of failure to submit the same the claim will be finally treated as repudiated on the grounds clearly mentioned in this letter.

14. OP has also issued the similar contended letter to complainant on 21.03.2022 as reminder to submit the necessary documents to honor the claim of the complainant. Hence OP has taken stand in his version that the complaint itself is premature and not maintainable under the law. When the OP has issued letters on above dates that is on 14.03.2022 and 21.03.2022 seems to be initial stage of the claim of the complainant but no-where complainant has stated that she has submitted the necessary documents as required by the OP to comply the claim, after going through the contention of OP. Even complainant has not produced any cogent evidence that she has complied the requirements of OP for honoring the claim. Hence in our view, complainant has not mentioned that she has produced the necessary documents to OP while she issued legal notice to them.

15. The crux of the matter here, there is no dispute with regard to the validity of policy and the valid license holder driven the vehicle at the time of accident, it is only with regard to the amount they spent for the repair charges when the OP company surveyor has assessed the vehicle, got fully damaged and cleared CLT/NOS when repair charges exceeds 75% of IDV of vehicle. By perusing the insurance policy which is at Ex.P.2, IDV of vehicle is mentioned as sum of Rs.3,40,400/-. The estimation for the repair charges issued by Ultra Auto Crate Pvt. Ltd., which is at Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.6(a) & (b) in total they costs around Rs.2,68,716/-. On that ground OP has taken stand that if the aggregate cost of repair of the vehicle subject to the terms and conditions of the policy exceeds 75% of IDV of vehicle shall be treated as CTL/NOS (Net of salvage). It was protested by complainant. Here, complainant is claiming sum of Rs.2,10,371/- which amounts to 60-62% of IDV of vehicle, not 75% of IDV of vehicle.

16. OP did not replied to the legal notice which was served on them and also they have not sent any letter to the complainant after the receipt of legal notice other than the letter dated 14.03.2022 and 21.03.2022 which were earlier to legal notice of complainant and not communicated to complainant for the instructions to satisfy their requirements before complying the claim. It shows they have already got the necessary documents otherwise OP could instructed the complainant to produce the same which are in deficit. Considering the act of OP and also considering the negligence in disbursement of amount even after the claim form has submitted, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP.  For that OP has to compensate to complainant. On the above reasons we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.

17. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-      

ORDER

i) Complaint filed U/S 35, is allowed in part.

ii) OP shall consider the claim of the complainant bearing No.7211239227 and disburse the amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy, after obtaining the necessary/relevant documents within 30 days from the date of order.

iii) OP shall pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation, within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on Award amount from the date of obtaining documents till realization.

((Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 24^th day of AUGUST, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;