BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 45/2013.
THIS THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Mohd. Ansar S/o. Mohd. Nazeer, Age: 24
years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 12-6- 1237/1495, LBS Nagar Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., City Talkies Road, Dist: Raichur.
Date of institution :- 01-08-2013.
Date of disposal :- 28-02-2014
Complainant represented by Sri. T.M. Swamy, Advocate
Opposite Party represented by Sri. Vikram Nair, Advocate.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondent U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is the registered owner of Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-27/700 which was purchased to earn his livelihood and it was insured with Respondent’s Insurance Company valid from 09-08-2011 to 09-08-2012. On 18-05-2012 at about 5:00 PM when the said vehicle of the complainant was proceeding from Raichur to Kalmala village on Raichur-Lingasugur Road for unloading fertilizer bags, near the power grid one tractor came from opposite direction followed by a TATA 407 van and a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-36/F-827 and when the tractor driver applied break suddenly the TATA 407 van dashed against the tractor and KSRTC bus dashed against it TATA 407 and further in the same speed hit the vehicle of the complainant which was damaged. The damaged vehicle was taken by the complainant to M/s. Bharat Lorry Body Builders, Raichur and got it repaired and submitted claim form to the Respondent. The complainant spent Rs.3,72,500/- for the repair of his vehicle. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and submitted his report to the Respondent estimating the damage to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. Surveyor has not assigned the reason in his report as to how he has differed with the amounts of bills submitted by the complainant. On close perusal of the survey report it seems that the said report was submitted only to please or to help the Respondent. Therefore the report submitted by the surveyor cannot be the final word. The Respondent has not settled the claim of the complainant till today though he had to settle the same within two months. Therefore the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. The Respondent filed the written version stating that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost as the same is based on false and frivolous allegations. The complaint on the face of it is devoid of any material substance. No deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed against the Respondent so as to make out a case under the provision of C.P. Act. The complainant is guilty of approaching this forum with malafide intention only to hold the Respondent to ransom and to derive undue and illegal monetary gains. The policy issued to the vehicle No.KA-27/700 is a liability only policy and the policy does not cover the risk for own damage of the vehicle. As such the complainant is not entitled for the monetary gains from the Respondent. There is no cause of action to file the complaint and one alleged is false. All the allegations which are not specifically traversed are denied as false. The compensation claimed is highly exaggerated and is on the higher side. Therefore the complaint be dismissed in the interest of justice.
4. Complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on seven documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7. On the other hand the Respondent to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as RW-1 and one document is marked as Ex.R-1.
5. Arguments heard on both sides.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent against him?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
7. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In the negative.
(2) In the negative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
8. The Respondent not disputing the issuance of policy of insurance in favour of the complainant’s lorry bearing No. KA-27/700 and its validity as on the date of the accident, repudiated the claim of the complainant to pay the cost of the damage caused to his lorry in the alleged accident on the ground that the policy issued is a liability only policy which does not cover the risk for own damage to the vehicle.
9. Perused the copy of the policy said to have been issued in favour of the complainant’s vehicle, which is marked as Ex.R-1. In the first line of the policy itself it is stated that it is a motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule GCCV- public carriers other than three wheelers liability only policy. Further on perusal of the said policy it is found that there is no IDV shown which also shows that the complainant had not insured his vehicle for its own damage. In the schedule of premium shown in the said policy it is found that for own damage premium was not paid and premium paid of Rs.11,482/- was towards 3rd party insurance as it is found that premium was paid for 3rd party cover only. Therefore when the complainant had not insured his vehicle for own damage by paying required premium the complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the Respondent’s Insurance Company towards damage caused to his vehicle in the alleged accident. Therefore the non payment of the same by the Respondent’s Insurance Company does not amount to deficiency in service. Accordingly this point is answered in the negative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. As complainant has not made out deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent’s Insurance Company he is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
11. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-02-2014)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
