Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/79/2014

M.M.Renukumar S/o. M.T.Manjaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Claims Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.K.N.Viswanathaiah

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 22/09/2014

     DISPOSED ON: 26/08/2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 79/2014 DATED:26th August 2015

 

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

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY,               MEMBER

                                         B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI,       

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   MEMBER

                               

 

COMPLAINANT	M.M. Renukumar S/o M.T. Manjaiah, R/o Municipal Colony, Bhuvaneshwari Circle, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. K.N. Vishwanathaiah,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	The Claims Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maganur Commercial Complex, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.B.M. Ravichandra,  Advocate)

 

SRI. T.N.   SREENIVASAIAH.  PRESIDENT.

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 for the direction to the OP to pay Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a from the date of accident and also damages and costs against OP.

 

2.     The case of the complainant, in brief, is as under:

 

The complainant is the absolute owner in possession of the Indigo CS Car, bearing Reg. No.KA-16-B-4097 and the same was insured with OP insurance company, vide policy No.1406532338000314 valid from 14-7-2013 to 13-7-2014 and it is comprehensive policy, covering both own damages and third party risks with personal accident benefits. 

 

The said vehicle met with the accident at about 1-30 a.m on 21.02.2014 near Sangolli Rayanna Circle in front of S.B Transport office at Chitradurga.  In the said accident, the said insured car was extensively damaged and almost all it has become scrap and unfit for use.  In this regard, the complainant has put forth his claim under the above said policy by submitting own damages claim form to the OP, narrating the details of accident, damages to the insured vehicle and probable repairing expenses with preliminary estimate of repairs, issued by Durga Car Services Pvt. Ltd., Chitradurga, which is one of the Authorized Service Centers of the Manufacturer of the car in question, which amounted to Rs.3,44,665/- in all, subject to some variations on actual repair basis after dismantling of the vehicle.  Further, the driver of the said car had valid and effective driving license and the copy of the same was also submitted to the OP with other related documents as required.  The complainant also sought for consent of the OP to get the said car repaired at early to avoid further loss and inconveniences to him.  But, as against the same, the OP issued letter dated 02.04.2014 to the complainant stating that his claim is not admissible on the ground that "as per All India Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA there should exist insurable interest at the time of taking policy and as well as at the time of loss and that in the captioned claim the same was not in position".  In fact, the complainant had absolute insurable interest in the car in question at the time of taking the said policy from the OP being its registered owner.

 

It is further case of the complainant that there are no any reasonable and sufficient and also any legal and technical grounds in not admitting the claim of the complainant by the OP.  The said letter dated 02.04.2014 is very vague and not stated specific ground to say that the complainant has no insurable interest and no valid reasons are assigned to reject the claim.  With no valid grounds, the OP evaded its liability under the said policy.  Thus, the complainant has got issued registered legal notice on 03.06.2014 calling upon the OP, to clarify and state the specific ground that how the complainant s not having insurable interest and that if he had no insurable interest at particular time, to send copy of the connected tariff Rules in force and copies of the claim Form and the documents submitted by him and also to give consent to the vehicle repaired for further needful and proceedings, within 5 days from receipt of the notice etc.  The said notice was served on the OP, but the OP has neither complied the said notice nor replied till the filing of the complaint.  Due to some financial troubles and to avoid complications the complainant has not got repaired and by this also the complainant is incurring loss every day due to diminishing of value of the vehicle and inconvenience to him in its absence. 

 

It is further the case of the complainant that he is the consumer as defined under the Act and there is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP and on account of the negligent and deliberate acts of the OP, the complainant has suffered much agony and has been put to great hardship, loss and inconvenience.  Hence, he has sought for the above relief at the hands of this Forum.

 

3.     After service of notice, the OP has entered appearance through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing objections to the complaint.  In brief, the case of the OP by way of objection is stated below:

The OP has specifically denied the averments made in the complaint.  However, the OP has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the car in question.  Further, the OP has admitted the liability and risk of the insurance company.  It is the specific case of the OP that the complainant has sold the vehicle in question to one Sathish and thus, as on the date of accident, he was not the owner and thus, he is not entitled to claim compensation.  Further, it is the specific case of the OP that as per All India Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA there should exist insurance interest at the time of taking policy and as well as at the time of loss and that in the present claim, the same was not in position.  Further, the OP has relied upon the letter issued by the complainant to them dated 19.03.2004 in which the complainant has intimated the OP that he has sold the vehicle in question to one Sathish.  On the above grounds, the OP has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.     In support of his claim, the complainant and OP have filed their respective affidavit and they have also produced the documents in support of their case.  The complainant has also adduced the evidence of one M.C. Himath Kedar S/o Channabasavaiah, the approved Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor as PW 2.  Subsequently, the complainant and OP have filed their respective written arguments.  We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and OP and we have also examined the materials available on record.

 

5.     The points that arise for our consideration are as under:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service by OP?

 

Point No.2:- If yes, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought for?

Point No.3:- What order?

 

        6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

 

        Point No.1:- In the Affirmative.

Point No.2:- The complainant is entitled

                   to Rs.2,50,000/-.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

 

::REASONS::

 

7. Point No. 1:- At the very outset, it is mentioned that there is no dispute with regard to the vehicle in question was having valid insurance coverage as on the date of the accident covering all risks.  Further, it is not in dispute about the occurrence of the accident and the vehicle suffered extensive damages.  It is the case of the complainant that, he is the owner of the car i.e., Indigo CS car bearing Reg. No.KA-16-B-4097 and the same was insured with the OP and the policy of insurance of the said car is comprehensive policy covering both own damages and also third party risks apart from personal accident benefit.  Further it is the case of the complainant on 21.02.2014 during night he has entrusted his friend Sathish who was having valid DL to give drop to his friend in his car.  Accordingly, his friend Sathish drove the said car, but near Sangolli Rayanna Circle, the said car met with the accident and was damaged extensively.  Immediately after the accident, the complainant has followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act and Rules by intimating the same to the OP, and also to the jurisdictional police. 

 

Subsequently, the complainant submitted his claim form to the OP by producing all relevant documents and also narrating the details of damages and probable repairing expenses with Preliminary estimate of repairs issued by Durga Car Services Pvt. Ltd., Chitradurga to the tune of Rs.3,44,665/-.  Further, the complainant has sought for consent of OP in getting the said damaged car repaired.  But, the OP has not complied with the said claim.  Instead, the OP has issued letter dated 02.04.2014 stating that, his claim is not admissible.  Thereafter, the complainant has got issued legal notice to OP on 03.06.2014 calling upon them to settle the claim.  The said notice was served on the OP.  Inspite of service of notice, the OP has not complied with the said notice.  Thus, the complainant is approaching this authority for redressal.

 

8.    The complainant in support of his case has produced the following documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-17.

 

1.  Certified copy of the FIR with complaint Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2.

2.  Certified copy of the Charge sheet: Ex .A-3

3.  Certified copy of the spot mahazar : Ex.A-4.

4.  Certified copy of the IMV report: Ex.A-5.

5.  Legal notice got issued by the complainant: Ex.A-6.

6.  Postal receipt: Ex.A-7.

7.  Letter issued by the Post Master with regard to settled reply: Ex.A-8.

8.  Letter dated 02.04.2004 written by OP to the complainant intimating him that his claim is not admissible: Ex.A-9.

9.  Report given by M.C. Himath Kedar, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor: Ex.A-10.

10. Loss Assessment (details) Ex.A-11.

11. Photographs of damaged Indigo Car Ex.A-12.

12. Challen pertaining to the Merchants Sowharda Sahakara Bank Ltd., Chitradurga to show that the complainant has remitted amount towards loan pertaining to the above vehicle Ex.A-13.

13. Letter issued by the Merchants Sowharda Sahakara Bank Ltd., Chitradurga to the complainant demanding him to pay loan Ex.A-14.

14. Estimate issued by Durga Car Services Pvt. Ltd., estimating the repair charges at Rs.3,44,665/- Ex.A-15.

15. Ledger extract pertaining to complainant's account in Merchants Sowharda Sahakara Bank Ltd., Ex.A-16.

16. Ledger extract pertaining to complainant's account in Merchants Sowharda Sahakara Bank Ltd., from 7-Feb 2007 to Feb 7-Feb 2015: Ex.A-16.

 

    9.       On perusal of oral evidence of the complainant coupled with the above documentary evidence, it is the case of the complainant that his insured car met with the accident, he submitted his claim to the OP for settlement as per report of Surveyor or Loss Assessor, but the OP has not settled the claim, then the complainant got issued legal notice calling upon OP to settle the claim.  But, the OP has not complied with the said notice nor settle the claim.  Instead, the OP has raised flimsy ground stating that, the claim of the complainant is not admissible; that the complainant has sold the vehicle to Sathish, and that the complainant himself has wrote letter to him intimating that he has sold the vehicle to Sathish etc.  But, in this regard, the OP has not proved his above contentions by adducing substantial oral and documentary evidence.

 

10.  The OP in support of its case has produced the following documents which are marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-9.

1.  Certified copy of policy: Ex.B-1.

2.  Claim intimation dated 22.02.2014: Ex.B-2.

3.  Letter dated 21.02.2014 of Sub-Inspector to the RTO: Ex.B-3.

4.  Letter dated 25.02.2014 of OP for request of documents: Ex.B-4.

5.  Certified copy of FIR: Ex.B-5.

6.  Certified copy of Charge Sheet: Ex.B-6.

7. Original letter dated 19.03.2014 of complainant: Ex.B-7.

8. Original Claim Form: Ex.B-8.

9. Copy of repudiation letter dated 23.04.2014 of OP: Ex.B-9.

 

11.  Further, OP has not stated the specific ground as to how, the complainant has no insurable interest and the OP has not assigned proper reasons to reject the claim of the complainant.  Further, the OP has placed reliance on the letter dated 19.03.2014 addressed to OP Co., Bangalore alleged to have written by the complainant.  According to OP, the complainant through the said letter has clearly stated that he has sold his car to his friend Sathish, and the said Sathish has paid advance amount of 30% and undertakes to discharge the Bank loan on the said vehicle.  But, the complainant has specifically denied the said letter.  According to him the said letter is created by the OP by making use of blank paper containing his signature, obtained by them etc.  In this regard, the OP has not proved the above letter by adducing substantial evidence.  Further, from the police papers with regard to accident, it is stated that the said Sathish is the owner-cum-driver.  In this regard, the complainant has stated that the complaint with regard to accident obtained by the police without the knowledge of the complainant.  However, from the police papers, it is seen that it is the complainant who has got released the damaged car from the police.  Further, on perusal of the documents such as challan pertaining to the Merchants Sowharda Sahakara Bank, Chitradurga i.e., documents Sl.No.13 to 15 as stated supra, it is the complainant who has paid the amounts to the said Bank towards car loan and not the said Sathish.  Under the above circumstances, I have no legal impediment to disbelieve the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the car in question at the time of the accident and further, he has established the deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  Therefore, we answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

 

12.  In view of the above discussion, it is very clear that the complainant has suffered a lot by the deficiency of service by the OP.  With regard to award of compensation, in the complaint, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.3.50,000/- .  The insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,41,000/-.  The estimate issued by Durga Car Services, Chitradurga shows Rs.3,44665/-.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs. two lakhs fifty thousand) as compensation to the complainant.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.2.  

 

        13.   Point No.3:- As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated there in we pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.  I hereby award Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs. two lakhs fifty thousand) as compensation to the complainant.  The OP is directed to pay the above compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of accident till realization, apart from Rs.10,000/- towards damages.  Further, the OP is directed to pay the above amount to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.  The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs.

 

        (This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 26/08/2015 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)         

 

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                      PRESIDENT