Karnataka

Gadag

CC/94/2011

Shekarappa.V.Andanshetter, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Claim Manager, The ICICI Lombord Gen Insurance Co-Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.A.Pujar

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H., PRESIDENT:

            The complainant has filed a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP alleging the deficiency of service for not settling the claim for an accident Vehicle bearing Registration Number KA-26 M-4123, complainant prays to  direct the OP to pay the claim and compensation of Rs.1,20,013-00 for deficiency in service including repair and Renovation Charges, Travelling Charges, Legal Notice Charges, Parking Charges, towing charges and also towards Mental agony, pain and suffering charges along with 18% interest P.A

The brief facts of the Complaint

           2.    The Complainant is a registered owner of Maruti Suzuki Alto LXI vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-26 M-4123 met with an accident on 09.05.2011 and the case was registered in Naregal Police Station bearing Crime No. 28/2011. The complainant had insured his vehicle with the OP’s-Insurance Company under policy No. 600349598 which is valid from 03.03.2011 and as the policy was in-force, the complainant approached OP’s insurance company and informed the damages occurred to the vehicle and handed over the FIR and the driver details to the OP and filed the Claim Intimation Form to the OP’s company and sent the damaged vehicle to the Bellad Motors Pvt. Ltd. Hubli, for necessary repairs, the company issued an estimated expenditure to the OP, on several request the OP had not responded to the complainant, the damaged vehicle was lying in Bellad Motors for more than 02 months. For the convenience of the complainant, the complainant himself incurred the expenses to the tune of Rs.52,013-00 and Parking Charges of Rs.6,000-00, the vehicle had been towed from the accident spot to the garage for which the complainant had paid Rs.5,000-00 and the complainant had travelled severally to the OP’s Office for the claim of the vehicle Insurance from his native and spent a lot. Finally on 15.08.2011, the OP had denied the claim made by the complainant.

 

               3.      The Complainant called upon OP by issuing a legal notice on 20.10.2011 though his counsel to settle the claim of the complainant, but the OP had not replied nor they have paid the claim amount. Thus, the OP had caused a mental tension and inconvenience to the Complainant. Hence, the complainant filed his Complaint for the above mentioned relief.

 

              4.      In pursuance of the notice issued to the OP, the OP appeared before the Forum though his counsel and filed Vakalat and written version and denied all the paragraphs in complaint. The OP contended that the complainant had not approached him immediately for the claim after the accident, and on the date of alleged accident the licenced driver was not driving the vehicle, the licence of the driver was also not produced. The OP had issued two letters to the complainant to produce the necessary document, but the complainant had not approached the OP’s office for more than one month, the OP took contention that the alleged accident is due to the negligence of the complainant himself, and the claim is time barred hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages. The OP had agreed that they have not denied to settle the damages Further, they submits that the OP sent an intimation to the complainant to produce the relevant documents within 7 days through the letter, but the complainant had failed to do so, due to the delay in producing the documents to the OP the matter had been closed.

 

        5.  The OP states in his written version that if the forum comes to a conclusion that complainant is entitled for the relief, the OP is liable to pay the damages as assessed by the OP’s authorized surveyor at Rs.44,541.00 and not liable for any other charges as claimed by the complainant.

 

         6.     The Complainant filed Chief Affidavit along with 28 documents, FIR, Complaint, Re-statement, Panchanama, IMV Report, Charge Sheet, 4 Photographs, 4 Invoice, 4 Service Estimates, Cash Paid Receipt, Letter of OP, Legal Notice, 2 letters from OP, Driving License, Insurance Copy.

        7.  The OP filed Chief Affidavit along with 05 documents.

 

         8.   After conclusion of the evidence both counsel argued the case by supporting of their rival contention. On perusal of the pleading evidence and arguments placed by both the parties, following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Weather the complainant proves that there is a negligence or deficiency in service by the OP?

2. Weather the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3. What order?

Our findings to the

Point No.1: in the Affirmative,

Point No.2 : Partially Affirmative

Point No.3 : as per the final Order

R E A S O N S

      9. POINT NO.1:   Perused the records, the case of the Complainant is that the complainant is a registered owner of Maruti Suzuki Alto LXI vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-26 M-4123 which met with an accident on 09.05.2011 and the case was registered in Naregal Police Station bearing Crime No.28/2011 dated 10.05.2011 which was not denied by the OP. The OP admits that the complainant had insured his vehicle with the OP’s-Insurance Company under Policy No. 600349598 which was in-force at the time of accident, but OP contends that the complainant had not furnished entire relevant document in time. The OP states that due to the delay in producing the documents to the OP the matter had been closed.

 Insurer cannot reject the claim for mere non-submission of documents, even the same principal was laid down in a latest decision reported in May 2015 Part 5 Vol II of CPJ page No. 67 wherein Their lordship held that  “ Consumer Protection Act 1986 sec 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15 – Insurance – Burglary – Surveyor appointed – Refusal to assess loss on ground of non-submission of documents – Deficiency in service – District Forum allowed complaint – Hence appeal – Surveyor was not right in refusing to asses loss on ground that responded had not furnished documents – Insured cannot be expected to furnish each and every document that the insurer seeks ad nauseam according to its whim and fancy – Insurer cannot reject claim in toto for mere non-submission of a document or two – Assessment of loss by District Forum justly and fairly made – Compensation awarded.

Wherefore, it is clearly shows that there is deficiency and negligence on the part of OP Hence the answer to the point No.1 is affirmative.

        10. Point NO.2   As the policy was in force, the complainant approached OP’s insurance company for the claim of the damages occurred to the vehicle, filed the claim intimation form to the OP’s company and the damaged vehicle sent to the Bellad Motors Pvt. Ltd. Hubli, for necessary repairs, the company issued a estimated expenditure to the OP, The OP also had estimated the costs of the repair by their authorized surveyor even though the OP had not settled the claim for no best reason the claim had been closed, the complainant for his convenience himself spent for the repair of the damaged vehicle and produced the cash bill for Rs.52,013.00 but the complainant failed to produce the bills which were spent against parking and towing charges. Hence complainant entitled for Rs.52,013.00 and a compensation of Rs.5,000-00 for Mental agony and inconvenience caused, Rs.2,000.00 towards the cost of this proceedings is awarded.

       11. POINT NO.3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed in part. In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

     1.     The Complaint is partially allowed with costs.

      2.   The complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.52,013-00 (Rupees fifty two thousand thirteen) towards the claim, along with 09% interest P.A from the date of filing, a sum of Rs.5,000-00 for his inconvenience and mental agony and Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees two thousand) for the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of the order, fails to pay the said amount within one month, the complainant is entitled to get 12% p.a. interest from the date of this order.

     3.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 29^th day of September, 2015)