Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/19/2017

Sheshagiriyappa S/o Late Bheemappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri.B.R.Anjaneyamurthy

17 Jun 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:15.02.2017

DISPOSED      ON:17.06.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 19/2017

 

DATED:  17^th JUNE 2017

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

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,                   

……COMPLAINANT	Seshagiriyappa, S/o Late Bheemappa, Age: 46 Years, Agriculturist, R.C. Owner of Tractor-Trailer No.KA-16 T-5236-5237, R/o Kakabalu village, Chitradurga Taluk and District.      (Rep by Sri. B.R. Anjanamurthy, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Code No.240801, BO Davanagere, No.273/1, 12, 1st Floor, Mallikkarjuna Towers, Pravasi Mandira Road, Davanagere 577002.   (Rep by Sri.B.M. Ravichandra, 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.2,85,014/- towards bill amount including loss of income from damaged vehicle for a period of months and other expenses along with interest at 18% p.a.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, complainant is an agriculturist and he is the RC owner of Sonalika Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg. No.  KA-16 T-5236-5237 and the same was insured with OP under comprehensive package policy No.2408013115P108952470 valid for the period from 07.11.2015 to 06.11.2016, which covers the own risk and statutory. The Customer ID of the same is No.1933337464 by paying premium amount of Rs.6,146/. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant is entitled to indemnify the loss caused due to damage of the vehicle and also to third parties.    It is further submitted that, on 04.05.2016 at about 7-00 PM, one Mallikarjunappa was driving the said vehicle.  While returning from land to his house, near the land of one Papanna one buffalo was came across midst of the road and in order to avoid the accident, the driver of the Tractor-Trailer took his vehicle on left side by applying break suddenly to overcome the accident, the driver lost his control over the vehicle and the same was toppled down and fully damaged.  The said vehicle has been parked for nearly about 2 months which resulted in the loss of income for Rs.3,000/- per day to the complainant.  After the said accident, the complainant was intimated to the OP, and the said vehicle was shifted to Davanagere by hiring a vehicle for repairs.  The complainant has spent a total sum of Rs.1,36,014/- and he has been claimed to the OP, the OP company has issued a settlement intimation voucher dated 13.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.31,000/- and the same was received by the complainant under protest and the settlement is arbitrary.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has submitted claim form, bills and concerned documents to the OP for settlement of own damage claim of the vehicle.  The OP through their office letter dated 13.01.2017 repudiated the claim of the complainant with respect to own damage of his vehicle.  The complainant’s brother was driving the above said vehicle who is having valid DL to drive the same at the time of accident and there is no violation of any MV Act and policy conditions by the complainant at any point of time.  The accident was occurred on account of unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances even the driver of the vehicle had taken maximum care and caution to avoid the accident.  Even if there is violation of terms and conditions of policy, the OP might have settled the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis as per the settled law.  The repudiation of the claim of own damage of the complainant’s vehicle is not legal, incorrect and against the law of insurance.  The complainant suffered heavy loss and he is not indemnify the expenses of repair of his vehicle.  He also suffered mental shock and agony due to repudiation of his claim.    The cause action for the complaint arose on 04.05.2016, the date of accident which caused damage to complainant’s insured vehicle and on 13.01.2017 when the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant.  The total claim of the complainant is of Rs.2,86\5,014/- with interest at 18%p.a.

3.      On service of notice OP appeared through Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate and filed version stating that, the allegations made in para 2 to 9 are which are not specifically admitted and hereby denied as false.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  It is admitted by the OP that, the complainant is the RC owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg. No.KA-16 T-5236-5237 and the same has been insured with OP under package policy bearing No.2408013115P108952470 for the period from 07.11.2015 to 06.11.2016, for total ID value of the Tractor for Rs.2,15,720/- and ID value of the Trailer for Rs.75,000/-, the same will be in force as per the terms and conditions of the policy under Sec.64 VB.    It is further submitted that, the complainant intimated about the accident of the vehicle on 06.05.2016 in writing to the OP insurance company stating that, his vehicle met with an accident on 04.05.2016 at about 7-30 PM near Kakabalu village and also for that the OP company has appointed a Surveyor and conducted the survey of the vehicle and asked the complainant to produce entire police records, insurance policy, RC, estimate towards repair of the vehicle, DL etc.  The complainant has furnished all the above documents on 16.05.2016.  After receiving all the documents, the OP has appointed surveyor for assessment of loss, who submitted report on 11.10.2016 assessing the net liability for Rs.33,000/- subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and deducted Rs.1,645/- towards solvage amount has to be deducted and the net liability amount arrived at Rs.33,000/-.  After receiving final survey report, OP company has sent settlement intimation voucher for Rs.31,000/- being the full and final settlement of the above mentioned claim through covering letter.  The complainant signed on the voucher and the same was returned to the OP.  The OP has paid a sum of Rs.31,000/- to the complainant on 13.01.2017.  After receiving the amount without any protest, he has submitted disbursement claim voucher to the OP and after that the OP has paid Rs.31,000/- to the complainant and the same was accepted.  The complainant has voluntarily accepted the amount of Rs.31,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claim.  In view of the above reasons, the OP company is not liable for any compensation as claimed in the complaint.   Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 were got marked. On behalf of OP one Sri. Surendra P. Gaonkar, Divisional Manager examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to B-11 documents have been got marked.   

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 the OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him 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:- Negative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is the case of the complainant that, complainant is the RC owner of Sonalika Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg. No.  KA-16 T-5236-5237 and the same has been insured with OP under comprehensive package policy No.2408013115P108952470 valid for the period from 07.11.2015 to 06.11.2016 covering the own risk under Customer ID No.1933337464 by paying premium amount of Rs.6,146/.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is entitled to indemnify the loss caused due to damage of the vehicle and also to third parties.    On 04.05.2016 at about 7-00 PM, one Mallikarjunappa was driving the said vehicle by that time, near the land of one Papanna, a buffalo was came across the midst of the road.  In order to avoid the accident, the driver of the Tractor-Trailer took his vehicle on left side by applying break suddenly to overcome the accident, the driver lost his control over the vehicle and the same was toppled down and fully damaged.  After the accident, the said vehicle has been parked nearly about 2 months which resulted in the loss of income for Rs.3,000/- per day to the complainant.  The complainant was intimated to the OP and the said vehicle was shifted to Davanagere by hiring a vehicle for repairs. The complainant has spent a total sum of Rs.1,36,014/- and has been claimed to the OP.  The OP company has issued a settlement intimation voucher dated 13.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.31,000/- and the same was received by the complainant under protest and the settlement is arbitrary.  The complainant has submitted claim form, bills and concerned documents to the OP for settlement of own damage claim of the vehicle.  The OP through their office letter dated 13.01.2017 repudiated the claim of the complainant with respect to own damage of his vehicle.  The complainant’s brother was driving the above said vehicle who is having valid DL to drive the same at the time of accident and there is no violation of any MV Act and policy conditions by the complainant at any point of time.  The accident was occurred on account of unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances even the driver of the vehicle had taken maximum care and caution to avoid the accident.  Even if there is violation of terms and conditions of policy, the OP might have settled the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis as per the settled law. The repudiation of the claim of own damage of the complainant’s vehicle is not legal, correct and which is against the law of insurance.  The complainant suffered heavy loss and he is not indemnify the expenses of repair of his vehicle. 

9.      In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like complaint given by the complainant marked as Ex.A-1, copy of the spot mahazar marked as Ex.A-2, copy of the FIR marked as Ex.A-3, Quotation dated 18.07.2016 marked as Ex.A-4, Estimate Bill dated 06.07.2016 marked as Ex.A-5, Cash Bill dated 03.06.2016 marked as Ex.A-6, Cash Bill issued by Revanasiddeshwara Tractor Garage dated 08.07.2016 marked as Ex.A-7 and Bill issued by Dhanalakshmi Industries dated 22.08.2016 marked as Ex.A-8.

10.    On the other hand, it is argued and admitted by the OP that, the complainant is the RC owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg. No.KA-16 T-5236-5237 and the same has been insured with OP under package policy bearing No.2408013115P108952470 for the period from 07.11.2015 to 06.11.2016, for a total ID value of the Tractor for Rs.2,15,720/- and ID value of the Trailer for Rs.75,000/-, the same will be in force as per the terms and conditions of the policy under Sec.64 VB.    The complainant intimated about the accident of the vehicle on 06.05.2016 in writing to the OP insurance company stating that, his vehicle met with an accident on 04.05.2016 at about 7-30 PM near Kakabalu village and also for that the OP company has appointed a Surveyor and conducted the survey of the vehicle and asked the complainant to produce entire police records, insurance policy, RC, estimate towards repair of the vehicle, DL etc.  The complainant has furnished all the above documents on 16.05.2016.  After receiving all the documents, the OP has appointed Surveyor for assessment of loss, who submitted report on 11.10.2016 assessing the net liability for Rs.33,000/- subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by deducting Rs.1,645/- towards salvage amount.  After receiving final survey report, OP company has sent settlement intimation voucher for Rs.31,000/- being the full and final settlement of the above mentioned claim through covering letter.  The complainant signed on the voucher and the same was returned to the OP.  The OP has paid a sum of Rs.31,000/- to the complainant on 13.01.2017.  After receiving the amount without any and the same was accepted.  The complainant has voluntarily accepted the amount of Rs.31,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claim.  In view of the above reasons, the OP Company is not liable for any compensation as claimed in the complaint.  

 11.   In support of its contention, the OP has filed affidavit evidence of its Divisional Manager and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like insurance policy marked as Ex.B-1, claim form marked as Ex.B-2, final survey report marked as Ex.B-3, claim intimation marked as Ex.B-4 and voucher for full, final settlement marked as Ex.B-5, Cash Tax Invoice dated 04.10.2016 marked as Ex.B-6, Bill dated 06.07.2016 marked as Ex.B-7, Cash Bill dated 03.06.2016 marked as Ex.B-8, Bill dated 18.07.2016 marked as Ex.B-9, Cash Bill dated 18.07.2016 marked as Ex.B-10 and Bill dated 22.08.2016 marked as Ex.B-11.

12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, complainant is the RC owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg. No.  KA-16 T-5236-5237 and the same has been insured with OP under comprehensive package policy No.2408013115P108952470 valid for the period from 07.11.2015 to 06.11.2016 covering the own risk under Customer ID No.1933337464 by paying premium amount of Rs.6,146/-.  On 04.05.2016 at about 7-00 PM, the said vehicle met with an accident and toppled down near the land of one Papanna of Kakabalu village.  The complainant intimated to the OP and the said vehicle was shifted to Davanagere by hiring a vehicle for repairs. The complainant has spent a total sum of Rs.1,36,014/- and has been claimed to the OP.  The OP company has issued a settlement intimation voucher dated 13.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.31,000/- and the same was received by the complainant. The OP through their office letter dated 13.01.2017 repudiated the claim of the complainant with respect to own damage of his vehicle.  OP has argued that, after receiving final survey report, OP company has sent a settlement intimation voucher for Rs.31,000/- being the full and final settlement of the above mentioned claim and the complainant signed on the voucher and the same was returned to the OP.  The OP has paid a sum of Rs.31,000/- to the complainant on 13.01.2017.  The complainant has voluntarily accepted the amount of Rs.31,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claim.  The OP has relied on the decisions reported in 2013(2) CPR 235 (NC) wherein it has been held that, once insured had received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim and signed on the discharge voucher, insured cannot be permitted to re-agitate his claim.  Another un-reported judgment in First Appeal No.71/2009 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission dated 05.01.2017, wherein it has been held that, once insured had received amount in full and final settlement of his insurance claim and signed discharge voucher, insured cannot be permitted to re-agitate his claim. In view of the above decisions, the complainant has received the amount from the OP towards final settlement as per Ex.B-5.  As per the Ex.B-5 clearly shows that, the complainant has received the amount as full and final settlement. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative.          

            13.     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 C.P Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No costs.

 

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 17/06/2017 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:

Sri. Surendra P. Gaonkar, Divisional Manager examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex.A-1:-	Complaint given by the complainant
02	Ex.A-2:-	Copy of the spot mahazar
03	Ex.A-3:-	Copy of the FIR
04	Ex.A-4:-	Quotation dated 18.07.2016
05	Ex.A-5:-	Estimate Bill dated 06.07.2016
06	Ex.A-6:-	Cash Bill dated 03.06.2016
07	Ex.A-7:-	Cash Bill issued by Revanasiddeshwara Tractor Garage dated 08.07.2016
08	Ex.A-8:-	Bill issued by Dhanalakshmi Industries dated 22.08.2016

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex.B-1:-	Copy of Insurance policy
02	Ex.B-2:-	Claim form
03	Ex.B-3:-	Final survey report
04	Ex.B-4:-	Claim intimation
05	Ex.B-5:-	Voucher for full, final settlement
06	Ex.B-6:-	Cash Tax Invoice dated 04.10.2016
07	Ex.B-7:-	Bill dated 06.07.2016
08	Ex.B-8:-	Cash Bill dated 03.06.2016
09	Ex.B-9:-	Bill dated 18.07.2016
10	Ex.B-10:-	Cash Bill dated 18.07.2016 marked
11	Ex.B-11:-	Bill dated 22.08.2016

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**