This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Beesha Ramesh, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri B. Gangadhar, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, FAC President)

          This Complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Hyundai Santro Car bearing No.AP-20-N-6668 and she obtained comprehensive insurance policy from the opposite party for the period from    24-02-2011 to 23-02-2012 and she had paid an amount of Rs.7,073/- towards premium on 24-02-2011.  The complainant submitted that her family friends met with accident near Maddulapalli Village of Khammam rural Mandal, Khammam District, while proceeding from Hyderabad to Khammam on 25-02-2011 due to negligent driving of the car driver.  As a result the front portion of the car was badly damaged and the occupants of the car were sustained grievous injuries.  The complainant further submitted that immediately after the accident the injured persons shifted to cure hospital for treatment and complainant immediately informed about the accident through phone to the office of opposite party and shifted the damaged car for repair to KUN Hyundai Showroom, Hyderabad.  The complainant further submitted that the company had deputed a supervisor to estimate the damage of the car, accordingly the supervisor of the company inspected the car and gave estimation of damage report worth Rs.5,41,614/- on charges of Rs.5,000/- paid by the complainant.  The complainant submitted that she handed over the car to the opposite party company on the condition to pay the total insurance amount of Rs.2,15,000/- and agreed to forgo the balance damaged cost.  The company sold the damaged car in favour of third parties by obtaining the sale transaction signature from the complainant and after completion of the process the company had paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant on 15-06-2011.  The complainant further submitted that the opposite party company having branch at Hyderabad assured the complainant that they will pay the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- within two weeks from the date of settlement.  Inspite of repeated reminders made by the complainant for payment of the balance amount, the opposite party company kept silent and issued a letter on 30-07-2011 expressing inability to entertain the claim with the alleged abbreviation of delay in intimating the claim by the complainant.  As the opposite parties failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, due to which the complainant suffered both mentally and physically and also sustained heavy loss for that the complainant filed the present complaint.   

3.     To prove her case, the complainant filed the following documents and the same have been marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7.

Ex.A-1:-Insurance and policy schedule of Car bearing No.AP-20-N-6668.

Ex.A-2:-Vehicle repair estimation, dt.30-03-2011 issued by KUN United Hyundai, Hyderabad.

Ex.A-3:-Photocopy of FIR No.50/2011, dated 25-02-2011.

Ex.A-4:-Photocopy of letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.A-5:-Repair Order dt. 29-03-2011, issued by the KUN United Hyundai, Hyderabad in respect of the rent and estimation charges paid by the complainant.

Ex.A-6:-Repudiation letter issued by the opposite party,                         dt. 30-07-2011.

Ex.A-7:-Office copy of legal notice, dt. 09-08-2011 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.

4.      On receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter the opposite party admitted that the Motor policy member VPC0310745000100 in respect of Hyundai Santro Vehicle No.AP-20-N-6668 valid from 24-02-2011 to 23-02-2012.  The opposite party submitted that the complainant very casually intimated about the accident to the opposite party after a lapse of 33 days, while the policy terms expressly states that notice of loss or damage shall be given to the company immediately upon happening of any loss.  The opposite party also relied on the relevant terms of the policy conditions “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim.  To support their contention the opposite party relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Ranga Lal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (Revision Petition No.1362 of 2011), and in M/s. New India Assurance Company Vs. Trilochan Jane (FA No.321/2005).  The opposite party further submitted that the complainant had taken policy on 24-02-2011 i.e. one day prior to the date of accident, however when the opposite party compared the specimen of signature in vehicle inspection report, claim form and proposal form with the registration certificate it showed grave discrepancy, further there was a break in insurance as the policy of the previous insurance got lapsed on 25-12-2010 and the complainant got the policy from opposite party agent on 24-02-2011 and the same shows that the complainant had obtained the policy after happening of the accident and is trying to foist a wrong claim on the opposite party by colluding with the agent to claim unlawfully, when the accident has not occurred before the policy was incepted, the claim of the policy is not payable and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.      The support their case, the opposite party filed the following documents and the same are marked as Ex.B-1 to B-7.

Ex.B-1:-Certified true copy of Certificate of Insurance and policy schedule.

Ex.B-2:- Claim Form.

Ex.B-3:- Vehicle inspection report.

Ex.B-4:- Photocopy of Proposal Form, dt. 24-02-2011.

Ex.B-5:- Photocopy of Driving License of one Sri. B. Kondal Rao.

Ex.B-6:- Photocopy of policy dt. 30-12-2009 for the period 26-12-2009 to 25-12-2010.

Ex.B-7:- Photocopy of Repudiation Letter, dt. 30-07-2011. 

6.      Written Arguments of both parties filed.  Heard Oral Arguments.

7.      Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration is,  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
2. To what relief?

Point:-

1)      In this case the complainant is the owner of Hyundai Santro Car bearing No.AP-20-N-6668 and obtained comprehensive insurance policy Exhibit B-1 issued by the opposite party.  The policy was valid from 24-02-2011 to                   23-02-2012.  Due to negligent driving of the car driver, her family friends met with an accident near Maddulapalli Village of Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, while proceeding from Hyderabad to Khammam on 25-02-2011, as a result the car was badly damaged and the occupants of the car were sustained grievous injuries.  Immediately the complainant informed about the accident through phone to the office of opposite party and shifted the damaged car for repair to KUN Hyundai Showroom, Hyderabad.  The showroom at Hyderabad had deputed a supervisor to estimate the damage of the car, accordingly the supervisor of the company estimated the damage worth Rs.5,41,614/- on collecting estimation charges of Rs.5,000/-.  The complainant had handed over the car to the opposite party for payment of total insurance amount of Rs.2,15,000/- and she agreed to forgo the balance damaged cost.  The KUN Hyundai Showroom sold the damaged car in favour of third parties and paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant on 15-06-2011.  The complainant informed the same to the opposite party which is  having branch at Hyderabad, on that they assured the complainant that they will pay the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- within two weeks from the date of settlement.  Inspite of repeated reminders made by the complainant for payment of the balance amount, the opposite party failed to pay the balance amount and issued a letter on 30-07-2011 expressing inability to entertain the claim with the alleged abbreviation of delay in intimation.   As the opposite parties failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, the complainant approached this Forum for redressal.

          From the documents and material available on record, we observed that immediately after the accident the driver of the Auto gave complaint to the police and on that police registered a case FIR No.50/2011 against the driver of the Car bearing No. AP-20-N-6668 on the same day.   And also the complainant intimated about the accident through phone to the office of opposite party and shifted the car to the dealer i.e. Kun United Hyundai, Hyderabad.   Kun United Hyundai Company supervisor made estimation for the damage and gave report for an amount of Rs.5,41,614/- and collected charges Rs.5,000/- towards estimation.  As per Ex.B-2 Claim Form the complainant submitted claim form along with all relevant documents to the opposite party, on that the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage….”

          To support their contention opposite party relied on various judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission, but the subject matter is far away to the present facts and also the above cases are decided on various grounds which are not attracted to the facts of the present case.  It is the case of the opposite party is that “the complainant had obtained the policy after happening of the accident and is trying to foist a wrong claim on the opposite party by colluding with the agent to claim unlawfully, when the accident has not occurred before the policy was inspected”, but the opposite parties failed to produce any evidence to support their case. 

 In, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Kulwant Singh IV (2014) CPJ 62 (NC) wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission observed that “Insurance Company should not have repudiated the claim, merely on account of delay in bringing theft to its knowledge, particularly when there was absolutely no delay in lodging the FIR with the police”.  In this case on hand, the opposite party company is liable to settle the claim as the driver of the Auto gave a complaint to the police immediately against the crime vehicle and also the opposite party is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer had obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. 

From the documents and material available on record we found that the driver of the Auto approached the police and gave complaint against the driver of the car who drove the vehicle rash and negligently, and the delay in intimation of accident is not relevant as the damage was admitted.  According to the opposite party the accident intimation was given to the opposite party after lapse of 33 days but it must be stated that no prejudice is caused due to the delay in as much as the objective of intimation to assert the damage was achieved by getting the estimation through the service centre.  The complainant had taken all steps which ordinarily taken by an ordinary prudent man.  And even after receiving legal notice from the counsel for the complainant, the opposite party company failed to settle the claim, it could be said that the opposite party company have not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy, which is in our view amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as such this point is answered in favour of the complainant.     

8.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. (from 30-07-2011) till the actual payment.   

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2017.  

      FAC PRESIDENT              MEMBER

         DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,

   KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                 For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                       -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                           For Opposite party:-   

FAC President              Member

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.