CC No.98.2016

Filed on.22.01.2016

Disposed on.22.07.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF JULY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.98/2016

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

        PRESIDENT

              Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                     MEMBER

                                              V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 22.01.2016 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.3,89,594/-as detailed above and Rs.1,00,000/- towards agony, inconvenience and daily rent of Rs.500/- to the Classic Motors, in all Rs.4,89,594/- with interest and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that the Complainant is the RC Owner of the Tata-Indica-V2 DLS Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17/B-1769 and it is insured with the Opposite Party Company under the B Package Policy No.OG14-9995-1803-00003509 for the period from 05.09.2013 to 04.09.2014.   On 27.01.2014, at about 6:45 a.m, the said vehicle met with accident under unavoidable circumstances near Thippagondana Halli Village near BWSSB quarters as a result the said vehicle was severally damaged.    In this regard Tavarekere Police, Ramanagara District has registered a case, in their GSC No.PO0277140600102.  After the accident the Complainant intimated to the Opposite Party Company, and submitted the Claim Form registered under claim No.OC-14-1701-1803-00000451.  On the instructions of the Opposite Party, the Complainant had taken the damaged vehicle by towing to Tavarekere Police station after the release from the said police station, the damaged vehicle by towing from Tavarekere Police Station to one Classic Motors at Bangalore and paid towing charges to the Transport Office.   On the instructions of the Opposite Party, the Panel Surveyor Mr.Pruthvish has made spot inspection of the damaged vehicle at Classic Motors Bangalore.  Thereafter the Complainant on the instruction of loss Assessor and valuer of the Opposite Party leave the vehicle for repair, and the said Authorized Tata Service Station issued estimate cost for accident repair of Rs.3,89,594/-that the Complainant has submitted all the required police documents, original estimate cost for accident repair well in time to the Opposite Party and requested the Company to consider the same and pay the amount of Rs.3,89,594/-.  But Company has intentionally not settled the claim of the Complainant for this attitude of Opposite Party, the Complainant is paying daily rent of Rs.500/- to the Classic Motors Bangalore and the Opposite Party is liable to pay total damage claim and also the rent. The Complainant had approached the Opposite Party number of times through the Customer Care and Panel Surveyor through his Mobile, but till this day the Opposite Party has not settled the claim of the Complainant by this Opposite Party have violated the policy conditions and made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.  In response to the notice, the Opposite Party put their appearance through their Counsel, in their version pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or on merits.  The complaint is frivolous, the Complainant has obtained Commercial Vehicle Package Policy No.OG-14-9995-1803-00003509 in favour of the Complainant for the period between 05.09.2013 to 04.09.2014 in respect of Tata India Car No.KA.17-B-1769, 2010 model of Sum Insured Rs.2,41,785/- subject to terms and conditions of the Policy.  The Opposite Party liability will not be more than loss assessed by IRDA/IDV whichever is less if the claim is admissible as per terms and conditions of the policy.  The said vehicle was registered as Motor Cab with seating capacity of 4+1 and Permit was obtained from Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga for the period between 10.07.2013 to 09.07.2018.  The Complainant submitted Claim Form dt.03.04.2014 to the Opposite Party on 14.04.2014, claiming that his vehicle suffered damages in the accident dt.27.01.2014 at 6-45 a.m near Thippagondanahalli.  The Opposite Party having registered the said claim, processed the same by appointing Loss Assessor/Surveyor to assess the loss or damage caused to the vehicle and in the absence of co-operation in furnishing the required documents from the Complainant. The Opposite Party wrote letters dt.05.03.2014, 14.03.2014 and another letter dt.24.03.2014 to the Complainant informing that, in view of non-co-operation and as he is not interested to process his claim, the claim stands repudiated.  Subsequently, the Complainant issued Legal Notice dt.01.07.2015 to the Opposite Party alleging that he has submitted Police documents, original estimate and other documents and in spite of that the Company has not settled his claim intentionally and thereafter, he filed the complaint only with allegations against the Opposite Party.  The present complaint is filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Party on the ground that his Own-Damage claim amount was not paid by the Opposite Party.  The Driver of the said Car do not possess driving license to drive the said Commercial transport Car at the time of accident and he was possessing Driving License to drive non-transport vehicle from 25.11.2011 to 24.11.2031.   Since Driver of the Car was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the said Car at the time of accident, the Complainant did not furnish that document to the Opposite Party to process his claim.  Even before this Hon’ble Forum, he has not furnished the Driving License copy of the driver of the said Car.  Hence, it is clear that the Opposite Party could not finalize the claim of the Complainant as they have not received the full documents from the Complainant.  If the driver of the insured Car do not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the same, the own-damage claim of the Complainant cannot be payable in view of violating of basic terms and conditions of the policy “if driver of vehicle was not possessing he valid driving license to drive particular type of vehicle at the time of accident, Insurance Company is not liability to reimburse the damages to vehicle”.  Hence, the complaint of Insured is deserved to be dismissed and denied all other allegations made in the complaint and prays to dismiss the complaint. 
4. The Complainant, Sri.Chetan Nadiger V.N filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party, the affidavit of one Sri.Krishna Sheernali has been filed.   Heard the arguments of both parties.

 5.     The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):-  Negative

POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:- On perusal of complaint and the version filed by the Opposite Party, it is not in dispute that the Complainant is the R.C.Owner of the Tata-Indica-V2 DLS Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17/B-1769 and it is insured with the Opposite Party Company under the B Package Policy No.OG14-9995-1803-00003509.  In order to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Copy of the policy.  By looking into this document, it is very clear that the Complainant being the owner of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17/B-1769 Tata-Indica-V2 DLS and it is insured with the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.2,41,785/- and the said Insurance will cover from 05.09.2013 to 04.09.2014 and Policy No.OG14-9995-1803-00003509.

8. It is further case of the Complainant that on 27.01.2014, at about 6:45 a.m, the said vehicle met with an accident under unavoidable circumstances near Thippagondana Halli Village near BWSSB quarters as a result the said vehicle was severally damaged.  In this regard Tavarekere Police has registered a case.  After the accident the Complainant intimated to the Opposite Party Company and submitted the Claim Form, the Opposite Party registered the Claim No.OC-14-1701-1803-00000451.  The Complainant submitted all the required police documents, original estimate cost for accident repair well in time to the Opposite Party and requested the Opposite Party to consider the same and to pay the amount of Rs.3,89,594/-. But Opposite Party Company has intentionally not settled the Claim of the Complainant.   These facts are denied by the Opposite Party in their version and taken a defence that the Complainant has submitted Claim Form dt.03.04.2014 to the Opposite Party on 14.04.2014, claiming that his vehicle suffered damages in the accident dt.27.01.2014.  The Opposite Party has registered the said Claim, processed the same by appointing Loss Assessor/Surveyor to assess the loss or damage caused to the vehicle and in the absence of co-operation in furnishing the required documents from the Complainant. The Opposite Party wrote letters dt.05.03.2014, 14.03.2014 and another letter dt.24.03.2014 to the Complainant but the Complainant fails to furnish the required documents.  In view of non-co-operation and as he is not interested to process his claim, the claim stands repudiated and further defence of the Opposite Party is that the driver of the said car do not possess driving license to drive the said Commercial Transport Car at the time of accident and he was possessing Driving License to drive non-transport vehicle from 25.11.2011 to 24.11.2031.   Since Driver of the Car was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the said Car at the time of accident, the Complainant did not furnish that document to the Opposite Party to process his claim. 

9. It is on the burden of the Complainant to establish the same, in order to establish the claim of the Complainant, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced Acknowledgement issued by the Police.  By looking into this document, it is clear that the Complainant lodged a complaint with Tavarekere Police Station on 27.01.2014 informing that his car No.KA-17/B-1769 met with an accident near BWSSB quarters at Thippagondana Halli Village at about 6-45 a.m, on that basis Tavarekere Police registered a C-MISS in GSC No.PO0277140600102 and produced Repair Order issued by the Classic Motors.  As looking into this document, it is very clear that the Complainant left his vehicle bearing No.KA-17/B-1769 with Classic Motors for the accident report and also produced the Estimate Cost for accident repair, which clearly reveals that the cost of the repair of the said vehicle is about Rs.3,89,594/- and produced the driving license.  By looking into this document, it is in the name of the Complainant valid from 25.11.2011 till 24.11.2031 for Tata Motor Vehicle and further produced the Mail correspondences, it clearly reveals that the Complainant lodge a Claim with the Opposite Party to compensate the amount caused to the Complainant as a result of the accident.  This evidence of the Complainant has not been denied or disputed by the Opposite Party.

10. In support of the defence of the Opposite Party, Sri.Krishna Sheernali, Deputy Manager of Opposite Party, in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced D.L.  By looking into this document, it is clear that the Complainant is holding and driving license to drive only Tata Motor Vehicle but does not show any badge number and also produced B-Register Extract of the Complainant’s vehicle.  As looking into this document, it is very clear that the Complainant is the R.C.Owner of the Car bearing No.KA.17B 1769, Tata Indica Classic of the vehicle is Motor Cab but where as in the D.L the Complainant is not holding a valid driving license to drive the Motor Cab.  In the event of having valid driving license in the D.L it should be mentioned the badge number, but it is not done and also produced letter dt.05.03.2014 it is addressed to the Complainant as well as the financier i.e., Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited and requested the Complainant as well as financier they required to be fulfilled the following information’s that is duly filled claim form, Policy Particulars, Original Estimate, Insured’s ID proof for signature verification, Original R.C & copy for verification, original D.L & copy for verification, Original Fitness certificate & copy for verification, Original Road Permit & copy for verification, Duly filled NEFT Form (Format attached) Canceled Blank cheque of policy holder, Copy of Pass Book and requested to kindly comply with the aforesaid requirements within 7 days and in the letter dt.05.03.2014 the Opposite Party again addressed the letter to the Complainant and called for the same particulars as mentioned in the letter dt.14.03.2015 within 7 days again on 24.03.2014. The Opposite Party addressed a letter to the Complainant informing that letters dt.05.03.2014 and 14.03.2014 he failed to responded and submitted the documents for further processing the claim.  On that reason, Opposite Party repudiated the claim.  From this evidence, it is very clear that the Opposite Party in spite of addressing letters making request the Complainant as well as the financier of the Complainant to furnish some particulars in order to process the claim of the Complainant. In spite of that the Complainant fails to fulfill their conditions by providing relevant necessary information and documents to the Opposite Party for processing the claim.  On that ground, they rejected the claim if really the Complainant have furnished all the relevant and necessary documents along with the claim form it is not necessary for the Opposite Party seeking information from the Complainant as well as his financier by addressing letters dt.05.03.2014 and 14.03.2014, the Complainant ought to have by issuing reply informed the Opposite Party, he has already furnished all the documents as requested by Opposite Party in their letter dt.05.03.2014 and 14.03.2014.  From this evidence placed by the parties, there is no such evidence.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the defence taken by the Opposite Party that the Complainant fails to furnish the necessary information to the Opposite Party in order to process the claim for settlement, thereby the Opposite Party repudiate the claim and informed the same to the Complainant by addressing a letter dt.24.03.2014.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The Complainant failed to establish that the Opposite Party is adopting unfair trade practice or there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party as alleged in the complaint.  Hence, this point is held in the Negative. 

11. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 22^nd day of July 2017)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Chetan Nadiger V.N, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Insurance Policy
2. Original copy of the c-miss dt.27.01.2014 with complaint
3. Original copy of the Estimation Report
4. Original Copy of the Claim Registration issued by Opposite Party
5. Office copy of the Legal Notice dt.01.07.2015
6. Original letter of Postal Department regarding service of Notice
7. Xerox copy of the Driving License

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri. Krishna Sheernali, Deputy Manager of the Opposite Party by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. True copy of Insurance Policy with wordings
2. Driving License Extract of Mr.Chethan Nadiger issued by ARTO, Chitradurga.
3. Copy of B-Register Extract of Car No.KA-17B-1769
4. Copy of Registration Certificate of Car No.KA-17B-1769
5. Print out of original first message received by the Call Center regarding the accident
6. Letter dt.05.03.2014 sent by Opposite Party to the Complainant
7. Letter dt.05.03.2014 sent by Opposite Party to the financier of the Complainant.
8. Letter dt.14.03.2014 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant
9. Letter dt.05.03.2014 sent by the Opposite Party to the financier of the Complainant.
10. Letter dt.24.03.2014 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
11. Letter dt.05.03.2014 sent by the Opposite Party to the financier of the Complainant.
12. Citations.

MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT