BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

C.C.No.84/2017

                     Date of filing: 03/08/2017

                                                                  Date of disposal: 06/10/2018

P R E S E N T :-

- V/S -

JUDGEMENT

By Smt. Sharada. K. President.

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,71,000/- towards cost of vehicle with interest @ 18% p.a. till the entire realization of the amount and pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of interest and other charges imposed by the finance and the authorized service centre and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony & harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and any other reliefs etc.,

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

          The complainant is the owner of Bharat Benz 3128-C  bearing Reg. No.KA-28/C-1351 and the same is insured with the OP/Insurance Company for the risk period starting from 10.11.2016 to 09.11.2017, further OP admits that, they have issued policy cum certificate No.610800/31/16/6300006962 for insured declared value of Rs.17,17,000/-. It is also submitted that, on 15.01.2017 at about 00-30 hours, the complainant insured vehicle met with an accident on Vijayapur – Tikota Road, Near Tikota I.B, due to the said accident, the vehicle has completely damaged, on the same day accident was reported to the OP’s Company and further on dtd: 18.01.2017, the complainant has submitted his claim form bearing No.610800/31/16/63/90000165 to Division office, Navanagar, Bagalkot. Therefore, the said vehicle was shifted to RNS Trucking Bharat Benz for repair which is the authorized service center, they made the estimation of the vehicle for Rs.23,39,958/- and the OP’s surveyor visted to service center and assessed the vehicle that, it is damaged 90% and submitted the report to the OP.  

Further complainant submitted that, complainant enquired about the claim several time, but OP’s not yet settled the claim, complainant purchased this vehicle for his livelihood and he was getting monthly income of more than 1 lack, due to the said accident, the complainant is unable to re-pay the loan installment of the vehicle. Since, he is suffering financial loss and mental agony. After issuing the notice also, the Ops have not replied for the same, hence complainant has filed this complaint for compensation and to claim the cost of new vehicle along with interest, mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

3.      The Forum registered a case and issued a notice to the Ops. After service of the notices, the Ops appeared through their counsel and the Ops have filed their written version.

          Brief fact of the Written Version of OP.No.1 & 2.

OPs appeared through their advocate and filed their written version, the OP submits that, the complainant is the  ownership of the said vehicle and insured with OP/Company and insurer declared the value of the vehicle as Rs.17,17,000/- and admitted the accident also, but OP denied that, the complainant had reported the accident on the same date and denied the investigation and surveyors visit to the said company and other allegation of the complainant, further submits that, the driver of the vehicle who had played the vehicle on that day i.e. Parmanand S. Koli,  who was not holding a valid and effective DL on the date of alleged accident, the driver Paramanand S Koli on the wheel sustained injuries and he had been admitted in the hospital as per the Form E transit passes and the commitment letter for driver issued on that day, date of alleged accident another vehicle bearing No. KA 28/C-2274 is driven by Sangappa N Boragi. Although, the complainant has filed the delayed FIR that, on the wheel is Sangappa N. Boragi instead of Paramanand S Koli, to claim the compensation in respect of insured vehicle, the complainant has switched over the real driver on the wheel by Sangappa. N. Boragi.

Further OP submits that, the complainant has given different statement before the police authority, the documents has been furnished in support of this. Moreover, Parmanand S. Koli has no valid license to play the vehicle and complainant filed this complaint against this OP to harass the Ops and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.  

4.      The complainant has filed his chief affidavit along with documents which are as follows;

The Ops also filed their chief affidavit’s and filed some documents on behalf of them are as follows;

5.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows;

1. Whether the complainant proves that, Ops made unfair trade practice?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?

3. What order?

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

1. Point No.1 – Negative.
2. Point No.2 – Negative.
3. Point No.3 - As per the final order;

R E A S O N S

7.     POINT NO.1 & 2:-  Since the Point No.1 & 2 are interlink, hence we proceed both the points together.

The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops claiming the vehicle insurance amount, the contention of the complainant is that, he is the owner of the vehicle Bharath Benz 1351 and same was insured with the Ops Company, during the accident, the policy is in force and further the complainant insured his vehicle for Rs.17,71,000/- and further on dtd: 15.01.2017 at about
00-03 hrs, the said vehicle met with an accident at Vijayapur near Tikota I.B. and he lodge the complaint with a concerned Police Station and also the same was informed to the Ops. Immediately, the Ops appointed IRDA surveyor, further complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs for claiming the insurance amount and he approached several times to the office of the Ops and letters also written to the OP’s and further contended that, the complainant has purchased the above said vehicle for his family livelihood, now due to the said accident, he has no other income to lead his life.

On the other hand OPs agreed some of the contentions of the complainant and they have agreed that, the complainant has insured his vehicle with them and said vehicle was met with an accident on 15.01.2017, FIR has been lodged and also agreed that, the complainant has claimed insurance amount with the Ops. But, OP’s submits that, the claim of the complainant was rejected for the reason that, complainant delayed to file FIR and driver has been changed on same day i.e. one Parmanand S. Koli was on the wheel to the said vehicle, but complainant changed the driver of his own vehicle another driver Sangappa N. Borgi, he was the driver of another vehicle of the complainant i.e. KA-28/C-2274.

Further submits that, complainant has not come with the clean hands before this Forum and also he has changed various versions while giving the statement of the complaints and further the said Parmanand S. Koli filed the MVC 727/2017 petition for claiming the compensation before the IV MACT Vijayapur Court. 

Ongoing through the records on file, the complainant filed FIR, in the FIR he submits that, the accident had occurred by the hitting to the tree in his complaint and in another version he submits that, the accident occurred due to save the dog, which came suddenly across the road and in Crime detail form, it is mentioned that, due to the rash and negligent driving of driver, he dashed to tree, these documents have been produced by the complainant and further Forum observes that, the complainant himself is not clear about the reason of the accident.

The OP produced the document pertaining to two vehicle bearing No. KA-28/C-1351 and another vehicle KA-28/C-2274 both vehicles belongs to the complainant and moreover OP produced the delivery challan E-transit past commitment letter signed by the driver Parmanand S. Koli in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA-28/C-1351 and another delivery challan from E-transit commitment letter dtd: 14.01.2017 in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA-28/C-2274 which has been signed by Sangappa S. Boragi, it is very clear that, Sangappa S. Boragi, was not a driver to the said vehicle in question, in FIR also complainant not whispered about the clear, but on the same day i.e. on 15.01.2017 Parmanand S Koli admitted in the hospital of Vijayapur to say these contention, the OP produced the documents in support of his case and further OP produced another document pertaining to the claim of MVC of Parmanand S. Koli he had stated in his complaint in MVC case that,  as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No.KA-28/C-1351 and accident occurred on 15.01.2017 only, such being the facts, the complainant filed this complaint against the Ops, the complainant stand is not firm to disprove the above contention of  the OP’s, complainant not even filed any documents to disbelieve the defense of the Ops. Hence, this Forum comes to conclusion that, Ops have not made any deficiency in service. Hence, we answer to Point No.1 & 2 in the Negative.  

8.      Point No.3:  In view of our findings on the above points, we pass the following;

O R D E R

1. This complaint is dismissed. No order on cost.
2. 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 Forum on this 06^th day of October, 2018).