Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/246/2018

Sri M.G.Basavaraj, S/o Late M.Gowranna, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory, National Insurance Com.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.M.Veeranna

04 Apr 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:03/12/2018

DISPOSED      ON:04/04/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:246/2018

 

DATED: 4^th APRIL 2019

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri M.G.Basavaraj, S/o Late M.Gowranna, Aged about 48 Years, Agriculturist, R/o Behind Bus-Stand, Mogalahally, B.G.Kere Post, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District. Owner of Eicher Canter Lorry, Bearing Regn.No.KA-16-C-8840, Cell No.9980975589.   (Rep by Sri.C.M. Veeranna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Authorized Signatory, National Insurance Com.Ltd., Branch Office, Jagalur Mahalingappa Towers, 1st Floor, B.D.Road, CHITRADURGA-577 501.      (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 Rs.5,76,195-34, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony, loss of time and energy, costs and  to grant such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the RC owner of Eicher Canter Truck-Medium Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-8840, the same has been purchased on 05.02.2018 by obtaining loan from the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance company Ltd., Chennai.  Accordingly, he has send DD to the Vijaya Sales and Services, Shimoga and taken delivery of the above said vehicle from the authorized dealer and the above said vehicle has been insured with the OP under policy No.610301/31/17/10010692 for the period from 05.02.2018 to 04.062019 covering nil depreciation.  On 26.06.2018, while coming from Molkalmuru to Vijayapura by taking generator load at Vijayapura to Nidagundi on NH-50 road at Beeraladinni Cross, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and fell down the vehicle in a pit.  Immediately, the complainant has informed the same to the OP vide letter dated 18.05.2018.  After that, the complainant has left the vehicle for repairs to Vijaya Auto Sales and Service Centre, Davanagere for repairs.  For this the said service centre has given an estimation for undertaking repairs to the tune of Rs.5,76,195-34.  The insurance company is liable to bear the expenses to an extent of Rs.5,76,195/- to the service centre for settlement of the repairs.  The insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that since the vehicle met with an accident on 18.02.2018, the permit was under process for issuance of the same and it has not contributed to the accident.  The permit has been issued on 22.02.2018 i.e., after the accident.  Hence, as on the date of accident, the permit is not valid, so, they are not liable to pay the repair charges while insurance policy was in force and they are liable to pay the repair charges.  But, they have not done so.  The complainant is depending upon the earnings of the said vehicle to his livelihood.  The complainant has repaired the vehicle by borrowing hand loan from his relatives and friends.  Primafacie it shows the deficiency of service and dereliction of duties rendered to their customers and OP could have settle the same under non-standard basis.  The complainant respectively submitted that the insurance policy which was obtained for zero depreciation coverage, but the insurance company had not given any valid reason for repudiation of the claim.  If the OP has not settled the claim, the complainant will suffer mentally and financial loss, which cannot be compensated in any terms.  The complainant is wholly depending upon the earnings of the said vehicle to eke out his livelihood.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 27.09.2018 which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum when the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

   3.   On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate and filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. 

According to the version filed by the OP, the OP has admitted all the averments of the complaint i.e., the complainant is the RC owner of the Eicher Canter Truck-Medium Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-8840, the same has been insured under policy No.610301/31/17/10010692 for the period from 05.02.2018 to 04.062019, which was in force at the time of accident.  The IDV of the said vehicle is of Rs.15,50,000/-.  After the intimation received from the complainant with regard to the accident, the OP has appointed one Anand.R Vaidya  for conducting spot survey, who visited the place of accident near Biraladinni cross on 18.12.2018 at about 4-00 PM and conducted spot survey and obtained photos of the damaged vehicle and submitted report to the OP company.  After receiving the report from the surveyor, further OP company has appointed another surveyor by name S.K. Veeranna, who is a surveyor and loss assessor for conducting survey of the vehicle.   The above said surveyor has visited the Vijaya Auto Sales and Service authorized dealer, Davanagere  and surveyed the vehicle and stated that the cost of repair of the said vehicle is of Rs.4,84,452/- and submitted a report to the OP on 15.05.2018.  Further it is submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as per Sec.66(i) of the M.V Act i.e., complainant is not having valid permit at the time of accident and further the vehicle is a commercial vehicle.  The complainant has applied for the permit on 22.02.2018, but the accident was occurred on 18.02.2018 i.e., 4 days earlier.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-13 were got marked and closed his side.   OP has examined on Malatesh C. Hallur, Assistant Manager as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-14 and closed their side.

 

5.      Arguments 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 of the damaged vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-8840 on non-standard basis if the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy 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.      Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the complainant and OP that, complainant is the RC owner of  Eicher Canter Truck-Medium Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-8840, the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.610301/31/17/10010692 for the period from 05.02.2018 to 04.062019 covering nil depreciation.   On the date of accident, the policy was in force.  The entire family of the complainant is depending on the earnings of the above said vehicle.  But the OP has filed a version and taken a contention that, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy i.e., as on the date of accident, the vehicle was not having valid permit.  On 18.12.2018, the vehicle met with an accident.  After that, the complainant has applied for permit.  No doubt, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  If the parties violated any terms and conditions of the policy, they are entitled for the relief under non-standard basis.  In this case also, the final surveyor of the OP has assessed the repair cost of the damaged vehicle for Rs.4,84,452/-.  Accordingly, the complainant is entitled for Rs.3,63,339/- towards repair cost of the damaged vehicle. No doubt, the OP has committed deficiency of service by repudiating that the vehicle has no valid permit at the time of accident.  Even if the vehicle was not having valid permit, as on the date of accident, if the policy was in force, it is the duty of the OP is to settle the claim.  But the OP has repudiated the claim, it is not sustainable under law.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle under non-standard basis.  Hence, the OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the claim.

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the sides.  There is no dispute between both the parties that, the above said vehicle met with an accident on 18.02.2018 and the permit was applied by the complainant on 22.02.2018 after lapse of four days from the date of accident.  If the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, he will get benefit under non-standard basis.  The complainant has relied on the decisions reported in 2018 II CPR 537 NC and another decision reported in 2018 I CPR 561. As per the said decisions, it clearly shows that, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs, if he is not having valid permit as on the date of accident, they will get relief under non-standard basis.  The OP has also relied on the decisions, they are not applicable to the case on hand.  It is a well settled principles of law that, if the vehicle is not having valid permit, the OP has to settle the claim on non-standard basis.  Hence, the OP has failed to settle the claim on non-standard basis, which is a deficiency of service.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     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.3,63,339/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of accident i.e.,27.02.2018 till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 4/04/2019 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. Malatesh C. Hallur, by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Letter dated 30.07.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	FIR
03	Ex-A-3:-	National Permit
04	Ex-A-4:-	Authorization Certificate of N.P
05	Ex-A-5:-	Challan for payment dated 26.02.2018
06	Ex-A-6:-	Road Tax receipt
07	Ex-A-7:-	RC
08	Ex-A-8:-	TC of registration
09	Ex.A-9:-	Insurance policy
10	Ex.A-10:-	Letter dated 17.04.2018 to the OP
11	Ex.A-11:-	Cash receipt dated 17.04.2018
12	Ex.A-12:-	Feedback form
13	Ex.A-13:-	Letter dated 27.09.2018 to the complaiannt

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Policy
02	Ex-B-2:-	FIR
03	Ex.B-3:-	Statement of Basavaraj
04	Ex-B-4:-	Motor claim form
05	Ex-B-5:-	Re-Inspection report
06	Ex.B-6:-	Photos
07	Ex-B-7:-	Motor survey report
08	Ex-B-8:-	Summary
09	Ex.B-9:-	Letter dated 21.05.2018 by the complainant to OP
10	Ex-B-10:-	Form 47
11	Ex-B-12:-	KMV 50
12	Ex.B-13:-	Letter dated 30.07.2018 by the complainant to OP
13	Ex-B-14:-	Letter dated 29.11.2018 to complainant by OP

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**