BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 9/2013.
THIS THE 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
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 :- Zakeer Begum D/o. Syed Khaja Mohinuddin,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Maski Tq. Lingasugur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT :- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance
Company Ltd., Bus Stand Road, Sindhanoor.
Date of institution :- 24-01-2013.
Date of disposal :- 20-09-2013.
Complainant represented by Sri. Prasannasharma 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 owner of vehicle bearing registration No. KA-36 M/6141 which was insured with the Respondent’s Insurance Company which was valid from 19-10-10 to 18-10-2011. On 15-05-2011 at about 4:30 AM on Rampur Bellary highway, in front of Bharat Dhaba the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident due to which the vehicle was badly damaged. In this regard at Rampur Police station a case was registered in Crime No. 66/2011. The complainant got her vehicle repaired at an expense of Rs.3,00,000/- at Sri. Maruthi Garage. Thereafter the complainant made claim with the Respondent to pay the loss incurred by her due to damage caused to the vehicle in the alleged accident. However the Respondent failed to settle the claim of the complainant without any good cause or reason. Therefore the complainant got issued legal notice to the Respondent calling upon him to settle the claim made by her. Inspite of service of the said notice the Respondent neither settled the claim nor replied to the notice. Hence the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. The Respondent filed written version stating that, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being false and frivolous. No deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed against the Respondent. The complainant approached this forum with malafide intention and to derive undue illegal monetary gains from the Respondent. The complainant has suppressed the true facts to make illegal monetary gains. The vehicle bearing registration No. KA-36/M-6141 is registered as a Private Car and on the date of the accident it was used as taxi in violation of the policy conditions. The driver of the car at the time of the accident was not having an endorsement in his DL to drive the transport vehicle which is also breach of the policy conditions. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the Respondent. The net loss of Rs.99,205/- was assessed by surveyor’s repair of the vehicle, there is no cause of action to file the complaint. All the allegations which are not specifically traversed are denied as false. Therefore the complaint be dismissed in the ends of justice.
4. Complainant to prove her case filed her affidavit evidence which is marked as PW-1 and relied on twenty eight documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-28. The Respondent to prove his case filed his affidavit evidence which is marked as RW-1 and one document produced 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 her.?
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 affirmative.
(2) Partly in affirmative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
8. Without denying the issuance of Insurance policy in favour of the complainant’s vehicle bearing No. KA-36/M-6141 and its validity as on the date of the alleged accident, the Respondent repudiated the claim made by the complainant to pay the cost of damage caused to her vehicle in the alleged accident on the ground that, though the said vehicle was private vehicle, at the time of accident it was used as taxi and the driver of the vehicle who was driving it at that time was not having endorsement in his DL to drive the transport vehicle which amounts to violation of policy conditions and therefore the complainant is not entitled for claim made by her. However the Respondent to substantiate his contention that the vehicle at the time of alleged was used as taxi has not produced any evidence. The complaint given with regard to the alleged accident by one of the injured was traveling in the said vehicle by name Shashi. The copy of which is marked as Ex.P-2 never stated that he and other injured passengers were traveling in the said vehicle of the complainant by paying hire to the driver. That being the case the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident need not have any endorsement in his DL to drive the transport vehicle. As per Ex.P-8 copy of DL he was holding DL to drive LMV which is sufficient to drive the vehicle of the complainant. Therefore the contention raised by the Respondent to repudiate the claim of the complainant is found baseless and illegal. Therefore the repudiation of the claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. Accordingly this Point is answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
9. As the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent she is entitled for the cost of damage caused to her vehicle in the alleged accident. On the basis of the Tax Invoice issued by the garage where the vehicle was repaired which are marked as Ex.P-10 to Ex.P-27 the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. However the Respondent contended that as per the surveyor’s report the damage caused to the vehicle was to the tune of Rs.99,205/- and the complainant is entitled for the said amount only towards damage caused to the vehicle because as per the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013(3) CPR 161 surveyor’s report is significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise. However the complainant here in failed to show that the surveyor’s report is not worth relying and it is not based on true and real facts. This opinion given by the Hon’ble National Commission is based on the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Roshanlal Oil Mill & Ors reported in (2000) 10 SCC 19. The bills produced by the complainant in support of her claim and Rs.3,00,000/- is not substantiated with the evidence of the persons who issued the said bills. Considering all these aspects we are of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled for Rs. 99,205/- towards damage vehicle caused to her from the Respondent with interest and cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order. Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.
POINT NO.3:-
10. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs.99,205/- from Respondent.
The complainant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on total sum of Rs.99,205/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount.
The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from the Respondent.
Respondents are given one month time from the date of this order for making payment of the above said amounts.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court on 20-09-2013)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
