Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/96/2017

Ravichandra.S.M - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,National Insurance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S.G.Dileep kumar

28 Jun 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:06/10/2017

DISPOSED      ON:28/06/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 96/2017

 

DATED:  28^th JUNE 2018

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

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGD., CLP   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Ravichandra. S.M, S/o Chandraiah, Age: 36 Years, RC owner of Car No.KA-16 C-1681, R/o Mitra Badavane, Medehalli Road,Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.S.G. Dileep Kumar, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, I Floor, Jagalur Mahalingappa Complex, P.B. Road, Chitradurga Branch.   (Rep by Sri.L. Madhusudhan, Advocate)

 

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, to grant costs and such others reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the RC owner of car bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1681, the same was insured with the OP under Policy bearing No.25331031140150041432 valid for the period from 29.11.2014 to 28.11.2015.  It is further submitted that, on 08.10.2015, the above said car met with an accident near Boolurahalli Gate and in the said accident, the car was fully damaged.  The Challakere Police have registered a case in Crime No.142/2015.  After the accident, the complainant intimated about the accident to the OP, the OP appointed a surveyor for assessment of the damage caused to the car.  The Surveyor estimated the damage caused to the car and submitted report to the OP.  The OP has collected all the necessary documents from the complainant and promised to settle the claim but, failed to settle the claim.  Finally, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, the Driver of the said car is not having effective DL to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, he is having only LMV DL and hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 08.10.2015 when the vehicle met with an accident.  Further, the complainant has intimated the same to the OP and further OP repudiated he claim, which is a deficiency in service        and therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint with cost. 

3.      After issuance of notice to the OP, OP appeared through Sri. L. Madhusudhan, Advocate and filed version.  As per the version of the OP, it is admitted that, the complainant is the RC owner of Car bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1681 and the same was insured with the OP under policy No.25331031140150041432 valid for the period from 29.11.2014 to 28.11.2015.  Further it is admitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 08.10.2015 and they appointed a surveyor to survey the vehicle which was involved in the accident. After receiving the survey report and collecting the necessary documents from the complainant, the claim was repudiated on the ground that, the Driver of the vehicle was not having effective valid DL and the Driver of the car bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1681 on the date of alleged accident possessed DL to drive LMV and he drove the vehicle which is Motorcab without possessing valid DL to drive LMV which is a clear violation of Sec.3 of MV Act and as such the owner of the vehicle Car violated the terms and conditions of the policy by handing over the vehicle to the driver who did not possess DL to drive LMV transport having knowledge of the same which is the cause for the alleged accident.  The OP has not committed any deficiency in service and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

4.      The complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-14 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OP, one Sri.B.L. Palanna, AAO of OP, has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 and B-2 documents have been got marked and closed their side.  

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that, OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the accident claim of his vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1681 and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

 

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

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, the complainant is the RC owner of car bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1681, the same has been insured with the OP under Policy bearing No.25331031140150041432 valid for the period from 29.11.2014 to 28.11.2015.  on 08.10.2015, the above said car met with an accident near Boolurahalli Gate and fully damaged.  After the accident, the complainant intimated about the accident to the OP, the OP appointed a surveyor for assessment of the damage caused to the car, who visited and submitted report to the OP.  Thereafter, the OP has collected all the necessary documents from the complainant and promised to settle the claim but, failed to settle the claim.  Finally, the OP has send a letter repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that, the Driver of the said car is not having effective DL to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, he is having only LMV DL. 

9.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and the OP.   It clearly goes to show that, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 08.10.2015 and fully damaged.  After intimation, the surveyor of the OP estimated the damage caused to the car at Rs.7,08,158/- after deducting the salvage.  The exhibits produced by the complainant i.e., Ex.A-1 to A-14 clearly shows that, the vehicle of the complainant fully damaged in accident occurred on 08.10.2015.  As per the exhibits produced by the OP, it clearly goes to show that, the surveyor has submitted report to the OP.  The OP has admitted in its version that, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with it and the policy was in force at the time of accident and the vehicle was fully damaged in accident as per the survey report submitted by the Surveyor of the OP.  As per the Ex.A-1 and A-2 and the report, goes to show that, the cost of the parts amounting to Rs.6,84,202/- and labour charges at Rs.54,455/- in all a sum of Rs.7,38,658/- and policy excess of Rs.500/-.  But the IDV of the vehicle is of Rs.5,05,945/-.  After deducting the salvage at Rs.60,000/-, the remaining amount is of Rs.4,45,945/-.  The Advocate for complainant has submitted the citations reported in 2012(2) KCCR 1248, 2015 ACJ 345 to 357 and ILR 2012 KAR 501 which are squarely applicable to the case on hand.  The Citations of the above Hon’ble Apex Courts have clearly shows that, the Insurance Company is held liable for payment to the complainant towards damages caused to his vehicle.   Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.        

 

            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 hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,45,945/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of accident till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the 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 Member after the correction of the draft on 28/06/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)                               

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. B.L. Palanna, the AAO of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex.A-2:-	Statement of Manjunath
02	Ex-A-3:-	Spot Panchanama
03	Ex-A-4:-	Motor Vehicles Accident Report
04	Ex-A-5:-	Charge Sheet
05	Ex-A-6:-	B-Register Extract
06	Ex-A-7:-	Assessment Report dated 24.11.2017
07	Ex-A-8:-	Bill of surveyor
08	Ex-A-9:-	Letter dated 29.06.2017 from OP
09	Ex-A-10:-	7 photos with bill No.3280 dated 05.11.2015
10	Ex-A-11:-	CD
11	Ex-A-12:-	DL Extract
12	Ex.A-13:-	Form No.42
13	Ex.A-14:-	Common Judgment in MVC No.314/2016

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Spot Survey Report
02	Ex-B-2:-	Motor Survey Report

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**