BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 8th December 2016
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.1/2013
(Admitted on 03.01.2013)
Mr. Prashanth Kumar Shetty,
S/o K. Seetharam Shetty,
Aged 35 years,
R/at .D.No.3. 68,
Kanjooru House, Bannuru Post,
Nehru Nagar, Puttur,
D.K. District.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri MRK)
VERSUS
The Branch Manager,
The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
403 & 404, 4th Floor,
Crystal Arc,
Near Hotel Roopa,
Balmatta Road,
Mangalore 575001.
…..........OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri. KP)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain relief opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,16,558/ along with 18% interest p.a from 05.11.2011 till the date of payment with cost, to pay a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/ for lost almost 1 year income and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards compensation.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. Prashanth Kumar Shetty, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C5 detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Sadashiva K (RW1) Legal Officer and authorized signatory of Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.R1 to R3 detailed in the annexure here below.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
We have perused the complaint and the version of the parties. We understood this dispute as the on related to deficiency in service by the Opposite party in not allowing the vehicle insurance claim.
2. The complaint alleges that he had obtained an insurance policy for his vehicle to cover own damages also. On 05.11.2011 his insured vehicle got stopped immediately and on information to Opposite party the said car was shifted to Bharath Auto Cars Pvt Ltd puttur for repair. The technician of the Bharath Auto Cars Pvt Ltd puttur has opined that the power supply circuit shorted and burnt causing the ECU failure and short circuit due to supply of high voltage current due to lighting caused damage On claiming the insurance amount for expenses incurred the Opposite party repudiated the claim. Opposite party contends that the loss incurred due to accident and there is no coverage for the loss due to electrical problem in the car hence repudiated. Hence there is no deficiency in service from their part. These being the core, we considered the following
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
The admitted facts are the complainant have an insurance coverage of own damage for his vehicle and the said vehicle damaged due to electrical related problem (short circuit) and shifted for repair, the claim submitted by the complainant and the said claim repudiated by the Opposite party and the policy coverage taken for accidental loss. The denied facts are, it is denied that the policy not covering the damage due to electrical or mechanical reasons, the electrical short circuit caused by the external reason of lighting as alleged by the complainant, the conducting of the survey by the Opposite party. In view of the above contentions and contra we are of opinion that the following points need to be adjudicated in resolving this dispute:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer as per consumer protection Act 1986?
- Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?
- What order?
On considering all related facts and evidence we answered the above points as under:
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- In the negative.
- As per delivered order.
REASON
POINT NO 1: The complainant had produced the copy of the policy No. OG.12.1702.1801.00000497 which is issued in the name of the complainant and the Opposite party is not disputing it. Hence there formed a relation of consumer and the service provider between the complainant and the opposite party and hence the point no 1 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 2 & 3: The specific case of the complainant is his insured vehicle while travelling to his native place with his brother on 05.11.2011 at 8.00 p.m. all of a sudden the complainant car stopped in the middle of the road itself. The complainant informed the Bhatath Motors Puttur and they toed the vehicle to their work shop. The technicians of the bharath Motors after inspecting the vehicle has opined that the power supply circuit to be shoted (presumed to be shorted) and bunt (presumed to be burnt) causing the ECU failure and the short (shot) circuit due to supply of high voltage current and that liquid spots find on the PCB related to material melted with high temperature and that the said failute is not attributed to any manufacturing defect and hence suspected due to electrical over stress from the external source lighting. On this ground the complainant claims his eligibility to the insurance. The Opposite party contends that there is no any external damage to the vehicle to contemplate accident had occurred and the said fact is admitted by the complainant I Opposite party interrogatories Q no 2. The Opposite party also contends that as per policy condition is specific as the company shall not be liable...mechanical or electrical break down failures or breakages.
2. In the interrogatories served by the Opposite party in Question No 3 there is a suggestion made as Q. do you have any documentary proof to say that the damage to your car was suspected electrical ofer stress from external source of lightning? Which is answered as Detailed mail dated 27.12.2011 from Kartik Dutta territory service manager, Maruthi Suzaki India Pvt. Ltd,. But we do not find any such documents being produced by the complainant. However the Opposite party produced document captioned Policy holders Manual which stated in page 16 Chapter 3 headed What is not covered as second point Loss or damaged caused due to mechanical and electrical breakdown including manufacturing defect we incline towards the Opposite party contention as there is no cogent evidence produced by the complainant either to say the lighting is either the cause or the probable cause for the damage to the vehicle and the damage caused due to accident from external source. The complainant not proved his case of accidental damage due to external lighting and the Opposite party liable for deficiency in service of repudiating the policy. Hence the answer for the point no 2 in the negative and in result point no 3 also negative.
POINT NO 4: In the light of above discussion and adjudication of the points we pass the following Order:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by member revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 8th December 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI.VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Prashanth Kumar Shetty
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
ExC1: Notarized copy of RC
ExC2: Notarized copy driving license
Ex-C3: Notarized copy Policy
Ex.C4: Notarized copy Job Card issued by the Bharat Auto Cash memo
Ex.C5: Legal notice with acknowledgment
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1: Mr. Sadashiva K (RW1) Legal Officer and authorized signatory of Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: True copy of policy terms and conditions
Ex.R2: Survey Report
Ex.R3: Authorization letters
Dated: 08.12.2016 MEMBER
