Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/32/2018

Sudhir. G.R. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

V.S. Prasanna

16 Nov 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :09/04/2018

               DISPOSED ON:16/11/2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 32/2018 DATED:16th NOVEMBER 2018

 

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

                                BSc.,MBA., DHA.,

LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S	Sudhir, G.R. S/o G.N. Rudrareddy, Anajandari, Turuvanuru road, B.L. Gowda layout, 2nd cross, Chitradurga-577 501   (Rep by Smt/Sri.V.S. Prasanna, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTY	The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, No.1 and 2, 1st Floor, Maganur Commercial Complex, Near KSRTC Bus stand, B.D. Road, Chitradurga 577 501.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The complainant has been filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OP to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a, Rs.5,000/- towards costs  and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant has purchased one Renault duster RXZ Plus on 30.03.2017 and the same has been registered at RTO, Chitradurga as KA-16 N-3899 on 13.04.2017 and insured the said vehicle with OP under policy No.1406272311001750 valid for the period from 27.03.2017 to 26.03.2018, which is a package policy and taken own damage premium as nil depreciation.  It is further submitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 19.07.2017 on NH-4 near Tumkur Bypass at about 10-30 AM, when the said vehicle coming from Bangalore to Chitradurga along with his family members.  The same has been informed to the OP immediately.  As per the instructions of the OP, the vehicle was shifted to Bangalore Trident Auto Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.  The surveyor of the OP visited and inspected the vehicle and instructed to repair the vehicle.  The vehicle was repaired by spending an amount of Rs.5,83,620/-, but the OP has settled for Rs.5,48,450/- towards repair, but not settled the remaining amount of Rs.35,175/-.  The complainant demanded to settle the difference amount, but the OP unnecessarily caused delay for payment of difference amount.  The complainant inevitably paid the difference amount under protest and taken delivery of the vehicle.  The OP has issued policy for own damage will be taken nil depreciation.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 14.09.2017 and the same has been received by the OP on 16.09.2017, but the OP has not paid the difference amount, which is a deficiency of service on the part of OP.   The cause of action arose for this complaint on 14.09.2017, the date on which the complainant has issued legal notice to the OP, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence prayed for allow the complaint. 

     

3.     After service of notice, one Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed his version.  According to the version filed by the OP, it is admitted that, the complainant is the RC owner of the Renault Duster vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 N-3899 and the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.1406272311001750 for a period from 27.03.2017 to 26.03.2018 for an IDV of Rs11,84,111/-.  Further it is admitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident near Tumkur Bypass on 19.07.2017 at about 10-15 AM, for that, the OP has asked to produce claim form, DL, RC, FC, Tax paid receipts, Pass Book, Adhar Card, Repair Estimation Cost, Pan Card and ID Proof, but the complainant has given claim form, copy of RC, Policy copy and DL.  After the accident, the OP has appointed one surveyor and loss assessor to conduct final survey of the vehicle, who conducted the final survey and given report stating that, the insurance liability amount payable to the complainant is of Rs.5,48,450/- only and estimated amount is Rs.5,83,620/- and after entire survey the OP has paid Rs.5,48,450/- to the Trident Auto Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and the difference amount of Rs.35,170/- has to be paid by the complainant since as per the calculation made by the surveyor and loss assessor, the OP has paid the entire amount to the Trident Auto Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., by way of RTGS and there is no liability will be arises against the complainant.  The OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant since whatever has to be payable under the head of loss under the policy insurance and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to     A-7 and closed his side.  One Sri.H. B. Guruprasad, of OP Company examined as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 and B-2 documents and closed their side.     

 

5. Heard the arguments.  

 

6.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

 

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant proves that, the OP has failed to settle his claim towards repair of his vehicle, which met with an accident on 19.07.2017, when the policy was in force at the time of accident and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

       

7. Our findings on the above points are as follows.

 

        Point No.1:-Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:-It is not in dispute that the complainant is the RC owner of Renault Duster bearing Registration No.KA-16 N-3899, the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.1406272311001750 and the same was in force from 27.03.2017 to 26.03.2018, for an IDV of Rs.1184,111/-.  On 19.07.2017 at about 10-30 AM, the said vehicle was met with an accident near Tumkur Bypass and damaged.  After the accident, the complainant intimated about the accident to the OP.  After that, the OP, appointed a surveyor for assessment of the damage caused to the vehicle.  The surveyor inspected the vehicle and given report assessing the damage caused to the vehicle for an amount of Rs.5,83,620/-, but the OP settled the claim only for Rs.5,48,450/- which is difference by an amount of Rs.35,175/- as assessed by the surveyor of the OP.  The complainant has produced the bills before this Forum, which shows the complainant has repaired the said vehicle.  The surveyor has given report assessing the damage caused to the vehicle for an amount of Rs.5.83,620/- but, the OP has settled the claim only for Rs.5,48,450/-, the differential amount of Rs.35,170/- is to be paid by the OP.  The repudiation made by the OP is only to give trouble to the complainant, which is a deficiency in service in settling the claim of the complainant on the part of OP.

    9.              We have gone through the entire documents, affidavits filed by both parties.  As per the complaint and documents, it clearly goes to show that, the complainant is the RC owner of the Renault Duster bearing Registration No.KA-16 N-3899 and he obtained insurance policy No.1406272311001750 for a period from 27.03.2017 to 26.03.2018 and the same has been admitted by the OP.  The vehicle met with an accident on 19.07.2017, which is within the policy period.  The OP has taken a main contention in its version that, the complainant has not produced only claim form, copy of RC, Policy copy and DL, the same is not sustainable under law because the complainant has produced the same.  When the policy was in force at the time of accident, it is the duty of the insurance company to settle the claim.  The surveyor has given report for an amount of Rs.5,83,620/- towards damage caused to the vehicle, but the complainant has settled only for Rs.5,48,450/-, which is difference by an amount of Rs.35,170/-, the same is liable to be paid by the OP but, the OP failed to do so.  Therefore, this Forum comes to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled for the compensation.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as affirmative.  

 

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 further ordered that the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,175/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. 

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 Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 27/10/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signature)

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:- Sri.H.B. Guruprasad, the Officer of OP Company by filing affidavit evidence

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Repair order of vehicle KA-16 N-3899
02	Ex-A-2:-	Repair voucher for Rs.35,170/-
03	Ex-A-3:-	Tax invoice taken under protest
04	Ex.A-4:-	Tax invoice
05	Ex.A-5:-	Copy of legal notice
06	Ex.A-6:-	Postal receipt and acknowledgement
07	Ex.A-7:-	Policy copy

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Copy of policy
02	Ex-B-2:-	Final survey report

 

LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Rhr.