Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/28/2015

Gunde Gowda C.M. S/o. Mahalingappa C.G. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.G.Gundegowda

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 09/03/2015

     DISPOSED ON: 12/04/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 28/2015 DATED:  12th April 2016

 

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	Gunde Gowda C.M, S/o Mahalingappa C.G, Agriculturist/Merchant, R/o Hariyabbe village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. G. Gundegowda,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Divisional Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd,. Divisional Office, Corporate Claims Department, Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46 Whites Road, Chennai.   2. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., B.H. Road, Tumkur.   (Rep by Sri.B.S. Shivamurthy,  Advocate for OP 2 and OP-1 ex-parte)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a direction to pay Rs.2,65,00/- towards damage to the Maruthi Omni along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Forum deems fit to grant.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, he is the owner of Maruthi Omni bearing Reg. No. KA-16 M-5082 and the same has been insured with the OPs under Policy No.300387414 for a period from 29.03.2011 to 28.03.2012  which covers all the risk.   It is submitted that, on 15.01.2012 at about 6.30 PM the said vehicle met with an accident near J.J. Halli village infront of Veenamba Daba, on Bangalore-Pune NH-4 road, Hiriyur and fully damaged and became scrap.  It is further submitted that, after the accident, complainant informed the same to the OPs and also intimated the Shruthi Motors, Maruthi Show room, Davanagere to estimate the damages and the employee of the said show room made an estimation of damages sustained to the said vehicle and the surveyor of the insurance company has also surveyed the above said vehicle and assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.2,65,000/-.  Complainant till today has not got repaired the vehicle as it became scrap.  After the survey complainant submitted application, police documents and the estimate made by the Shruthi Motors to settle the claim but, the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, one Gangadhara has no valid DL at the time of accident.  As per the police documents the driver of the Maruthi Omni is Gunde Gowda C.M, who is the complainant and also the RC owner.  OPs paid the compensation by admitting the liability to the dependents of the deceased who are died in the above said accident in MVC No.415/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Sira.  Knowing all these facts, OPs without settling the claim of the complainant simply repudiated the claim vide letter dated 26.04.2013.  Complainant got issued legal notice on 26.08.2014 to the OPs but, the OPs neither replied nor settled the claim.  The cause of action to file this complaint arose on 26.04.2013 when the OPs repudiate the claim of the complainant. Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs so, he sustained financial loss and mental agony and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

        3. Notice issued to the OP No.1 not returned and remained absent and placed ex-parte.  On service of notice OP No.2 appeared through Advocate Sri. B.S. Shivamurthy and filed version stating that, the complainant had taken motor policy No.MPA3387414000100 to his vehicle bearing No. KA-16 M-5082 which was valid for the period from 29.03.2011 to 28.03.2012 subject to the terms and conditions.  It is stated that, complainant himself admitted that the vehicle was being driven by Mr. Gangadhar and dashed a parked lorry bearing No.KA-25 A-9877 from the back and as a result three persons died on the spot including the driver and therefore, OPs sought for production of the driving license of Mr. Gangadhar vide letter dated 07.03.2013 but the complainant did not revert to the said letter by producing driving license, therefore, it is an admitted position that, the driver was not having driving license to drive the vehicle and as a result, the complainant made up a story stating that, he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident to ensure that the insurance claim of the complainant is duly paid.  It is further submitted that, the above facts are apparent that, Mr. Gangadhar was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and for that reason he got fatal injuries and died on the spot as the impact damages to the right hand side was so severe that the driver driving the vehicle could not have escaped unhurt and this is evident from the fact that Mr. Gangadhar driving the vehicle expired within a fraction of second after happening of accident at the spot.  These facts shows that the complainant tried to manipulate the facts with regard to the damages and driver details and therefore, the claim was validly denied as the same is inadmissible under the terms and conditions and there is a deliberate mis-representation on the part of the complainant to gain unlawfully.  It is further submitted that, the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident did not have valid driving license that is the reason the complainant is trying to hide the facts from the OPs.  Therefore, the OPs have rightly sought for the driving license of Mr. Gangadhar although the complainant failed to provide the same as a result the claim was closed as no claim as it is implied understood that, Mr. Gangadhar was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident.  It is needless to state that, a person driving the vehicle should hold valid and effective driving license to make any claim under the policy and to cover up these true facts the complainant herein projected as if the vehicle was driven by himself to gain unlawfully from the OPs and the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim and etc., and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-14 documents are marked. 

        5. OP has examined one Sri. Vinayaprakash, Assistant Manager (Legal), as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and no documents have been marked. 

 

        6.     Written Arguments filed and oral arguments heard.

 

7. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, he is the owner of Maruthi Omni bearing No  KA-16 M-5082 and it was duly insured with the OPs and on 15.01.2012 near J.J Halli it met with an accident  and fully damages and OPs hav illegally repudiated the claim and thereby complainant has sustained financial loss and mental agony and OPs have committed deficiency of service and entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

                                        ::REASONS::

9. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, complainant is the owner of Maruthi Omni bearing Reg. No. KA-16 M-5082 and the same has been insured with the OPs under Policy No.300387414 for a period from 29.03.2011 to 28.03.2012  which covers all the risk. On 15.01.2012 at about 6.30 PM the said vehicle met with an accident near J.J. Halli village infront of Veenamba Daba, on Bangalore-Pune NH-4 road, Hiriyur and fully damaged and became scrap.  After the accident, complainant informed the same to the OPs and also intimated the Shruthi Motors, Maruthi Show room, Davanagere to estimate the damages and the employee of the said show room made an estimation of damages sustained to the said vehicle and the surveyor of the insurance company has also surveyed the above said vehicle and assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.2,65,000/-.  After the survey complainant submitted application, police documents and the estimate made by the Shruthi Motors to settle the claim but, the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, one Gangadhara has no valid DL at the time of accident.  As per the police documents the driver of the Maruthi Omni is Gunde Gowda C.M, who is the complainant and also the RC owner.  Complainant got issued legal notice on 26.08.2014 to the OPs but, the OPs neither replied nor settled the claim. 

10.  So, as on the date of accident, insurance policy was in force.  It is the main contentions of the complainant that, on 15.10.2012 when he driving the said vehicle near J.J. Halli, it met with an accident and fully damaged.  Complainant informed the same to OPs and made a claim and in spite of policy was in force, OPs have repudiated the claim on the ground that,  one Mr. Gangadhar was driving the vehicle at time of accident and he has no valid driving license.   Therefore, he sustained financial loss and mental agony and OPs have committed deficiency of service so, this complaint has been filed. 

 

       11.  In support of his contentions,  complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also riled on documents like copy of charge sheet marked as Ex.A-1, copy of statement of one Srinivasa marked as Ex.A-2, copy of panchanama marked as Ex.A-3, copy of Motor Vehicles Accident Report marked as Ex.A-4, letter dated 26.04.2013 issued by the OPs to the complainant marked as Ex.A-5, copy of legal notice marked as Ex.A-6, Postal Receipt marked as Ex.A-7, letter of postal authorities marked as Ex.A-8, copy of order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Sira in MVC No.415/2012 marked as Ex.A-9, copy of order sheet in MVC No.415/2012 marked as Ex.A-10, copy of certificate of registration marked as Ex.A-11, Copy of DL pertains to the complainant marked as Ex.A-12, photos of the damaged vehicle marked as Ex.A-13 and the copy of award passed in MVC No.675/2013 and MVC No.676/2013 and they are not in dispute.

 

12.  On the other hand, it is admitted by the OPs that, complainant is the owner of said vehicle and it was duly insured with the OPs and policy was in force as on the date of accident.  It is argued by the OPs that, complainant himself admitted that the vehicle was being driven by Mr. Gangadhar and dashed a parked lorry bearing No.KA-25 A-9877 from the back and as a result three persons died on the spot including the driver and therefore, OPs sought for production of the driving license of Mr. Gangadhar vide letter dated 07.03.2013 but the complainant did not revert to the said letter by producing driving license, therefore, it is an admitted position that, the driver was not having driving license to drive the vehicle and as a result, the complainant made up a story stating that, he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident to ensure that the insurance claim of the complainant is duly paid.  The above facts are apparent that, Mr. Gangadhar was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.   The person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident did not have valid driving license that is the reason the complainant is trying to hide the facts from the OPs.  Therefore, the OPs have rightly sought for the driving license of Mr. Gangadhar although the complainant failed to provide the same as a result the claim was closed as no claim as it is implied understood that, Mr. Gangadhar was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident.  It is needless to state that, a person driving the vehicle should hold valid and effective driving license to make any claim under the policy and to cover up these true facts the complainant herein projected as if the vehicle was driven by himself to gain unlawfully from the OPs and the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim and etc., and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

       13.   On hearing the rival contentions of both the sides and on careful perusal of the entire records, it clearly shows that, OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Admittedly, complainant is the owner of said vehicle and it was duly insured with the OPs and the policy was in force as on the date  of accident. Ex.A-1 the charge sheet shows that, the complainant was the driver who was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident who has got a valid driving license to drive the said vehicle as per Ex.A-12.  The OPs have not produced any documents to show that, one Mr. Gangadhar was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident and wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, Mr. Gangadhar was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he has no valid driving license to drive the same.  Shruti Motors, Davanagere, the Authorized dealer of Maruthi Suzuki India Limited has given service estimate dated 03.02.2012. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons involved therein, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled to claim compensation as the policy was in force as on the date of accident.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is partly held as affirmative to the complainant.

14.  Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:

ORDER

 

        The complaint filed by the complainant u/Sec. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is partly allowed.  The OPs are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

 

Further the complainant is also entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. 

Further, the OPs are hereby directed to pay the above amount to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. 

 

        (This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 12/04/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)         

 

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER          

 

          

PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1.

Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

                                                -Nil-

On behalf of OP Sri. G. Vinayaprakash, Assistant Manager-Legal  of OPs by filing affidavit evidence taken as DW-1:

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Copy of charge sheet
02	Ex-A-2:-	Copy of statement of one Srinivasa
03	Ex-A-3:	Copy of spot Panchanama
04	Ex-A-4:	Copy of Motor Vehicles Accident Report
05	Ex-A-5:	Letter dated 26.04.2013 issued by the OPs to the complainant
06	Ex.A-6:	Copy of legal notice
07	Ex.A-7:	Postal Receipt
08	EX.A-8:	Letter of postal authorities
09	Ex.A-9:	Copy of order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Sira in MVC No.415/2012
10	Ex.A-10:	Copy of order sheet in MVC No.415/2012
11	Ex.A-11:	Copy of certificate of registration
12	Ex.A-12	Copy of DL pertains to the complainant
13	Ex.A-13:	Photos of the damaged vehicle
14	Ex.A-14:	Copy of award passed in MVC No.675/2013 and MVC No.676/2013

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER  

 

                   

PRESIDENT

Rhr.