Karnataka

Kolar

CC/74/2017

Smt.Jyothi Shree.S - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,IFFCO-TOKIO - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.V.Gopal Reddy

31 May 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 08/11/2017

Date of Order: 11/05/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 11^th DAY OF MAY 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 74 OF 2017

Smt. Jyothi Shree.S,

W/o. Sridhar.R,

Door No.28/2, Shivakeshi Nagar,

Near Shiva Temple,

Muthyalpet, Mulbagal Town,

PIN:563131, Kolar District.                                     ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. G.V. Gopal Reddy, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

The Branch Manager,

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance

Company, Adithya Lab Building,

Near S.N.R. Hospital Circle,

Kolar City-563 101.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)                           …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) has sought relief against OP as issuance of directions to pay the compensation for damages of Rs.50,180/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum together with costs.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, she being owner of two wheeler Honda Activa bearing registration No. KA-07 W-8362 was purchased on 04.07.2015 vide Engine No. ME4JF504FFT418718, Chassis No. JF50ET2419671 and got the same insured with OP on 16.06.2016 vide Policy No.98545770 which was valid from 18.06.2016 to 17.06.2017 which covers own damage and third party damages of the vehicle.

 

(b)    Further she has contended that, on 28.05.2017 at about 09.00 PM, when her husband Sridhar along with their 05 years son Hitesh and Vignesh while travelling in the said vehicle, near Nagashettihally Village goods lorry bearing registration No. KA-07 A-5517 was hitted with high speed from back side in a rash and negligently resulting in the death of Vignesh and Sridhar and Hitesh sustained injuries and the said bike was totally damaged.  The Bethamangala Police has registered a Criminal Case against the said Lorry driver in Cr. No.103/2017 Under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

 

(c)    It is further contended that, she approached OP in the month of June-2017 for insurance claim and submitted all necessary documents with estimated bill of Rs.50,018/-, which was issued by Sri. Kausthub Motors Private Limited an authorized dealer of Honda two wheeler at KGF and OP had given claim No.37088730 and appointed Surveyor, he was inspected the vehicle and given report to OP.  But OP repudiated the claim as “it is observed in the FIR that, more than 03 persons were travelling in the said vehicle while accident, so there is violation of permit condition and carrying excess passengers is against to the law.  Hence claim rejected.

 

(d)    It is further contended that, her husband and Vignesh are only two persons in count, her son Hitesh is 05 years child not in count as an elder person and there is no violation of permit or against to law.  OP intentionally rejected claim, thus rendered deficiency in service.  So contending the complainant has come-up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum OP has put in its appearance through its learned counsel and submitted written version.

 

(a)    OP admits the issuance of complainant insurance policy to the said vehicle and validity period too and it is specifically contends that, there is an violation of TWP seating capacity and terms and conditions of insurance policy as per FIR 3 persons were travelled, so claim was repudiated and all other averments denied.  The negligence is on the part of the complainant only.  So there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted her affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and got examined as PW.1 and marked documents as Exhibit-P.1 to P.9 as mentioned below:-

(i) Copy of FIR dated: 28.05.2017 in Cr No.103/2017 of Bethamangala Police – Ex.P.1

(ii) Notarized copy of complaint dt. 28.05.2017 – Ex.P.2.

(iii) Notarized copy of certificate of registration vide No. KA-07 W 8362 – Ex.P.3.

(iv) Notarized copy of insurance policy issued by OP – Ex.P.4.

(v) Notarized copy of DL of R.Sridhara – Ex.P.5.

(vi) Notarized copy of Aadhar card – Ex.P.6.

(vii) Notarized copy of Birth Certificate of my son Hithaish Sai Bhandara S – Ex.P.7.

(viii) Original estimation issued by Sri Kausthub Motors Pvt Ltd – Ex.P.8.

(ix) Original repudiation letter dt.12.07.17 issued by OP – Ex.P.9.

 

07.   Mis. Pushpa Hariharan, D/o. K.P. Hariharan, Vice-President of M/s. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore, has sworn her affidavit evidence on behalf of OP and submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of the Insurance Policy issued on behalf of complainant – Annexure A.

(ii) Copy of the ‘B’ Register Extract issued by RTO, Kolar – Annexure –B.

(iii) True Copy of Motor final survey Report dated: 24.06.2017 – Annexure –C.

(iv) Copy of repudiation letter dt: 12.07.2017 issued by OP to complainant – Annexure – D.

 

08.   Heard oral arguments of both sides.

 

09.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

(1) Whether is there deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

 

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as she sought for?

 

(3)  What order?

 

10.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Affirmative

POINT (2):-      In the Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) & (2):-

11.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

12.   It is an admitted fact that, the complainant having valid insurance policy of OP vide policy bearing No. 98545770 to the Honda Activa two wheeler bearing registration No. KA-07 W-8362 valid from 18.06.2016 to 17.06.2017.

 

13.   On perusal of Exhibit-P.9 i.e., repudiation letter dated: 12.07.2017 cause for repudiation is as per FIR there were 03 persons being travelled in the said bike while accident.  Contrary to this complainant pleaded as her son Hitesh is of 05 years old child will not count as elder person.  To prove her contention the complainant has submitted Birth certificate of Hithaish Sai Bhandara.S i.e., Exhibit-P.7.  It is clear that, his date of Birth is 21.06.2012 at about 05 years only and in our view it will not count as elder person.  Therefore we opined that, there was no violations of any terms and conditions from the side of complainant.  Thus by repudiating complainant’s claim OP rendered deficiency in service.

 

14.   As per Exhibit-P.4 i.e., insurance policy bearing No.98545770 IDV amount is of Rs.45,712/-.  According to Exhibit-P.8 i.e., report of Sri Kausthub Motors Private Limited total damages of the said vehicle is of Rs.50,018/- and as per survey report dated: 24.06.2017 submitted by OP survey assessor total amount payable is of Rs.36,921/-.

 

15.   On careful perusal of all the above reports it is clear that, the said vehicle is totally damaged since there is difference in the amount payable in the report of OP surveyor and Sri Kausthub Motors report, we bind on the insurance IDV amount of Rs.45,712/- to be payable by OP to the complainant and accordingly we answered point (1) & (2) in the affirmative.

 

POINT (3):-

16.   In view of the above discussions on Points (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.3,000/- as against OP as here under:-

(a)    The OP is herewith directed to pay a sum of IDV amount of Rs.45,712/- of insurance policy vide No.98545770 of the Honda Activa two wheeler bearing registration No. KA-07 W-8362 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till realization and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be payable to complainant by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 11^th DAY OF MAY 2018)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT