Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/102/2016

G.M. Manjunatha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

G.M. Shivakumar

01 Apr 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28.10.2016

DISPOSED      ON:01.04.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 102/2016

 

DATED:  1^st APRIL 2017

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

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	G.M.Manjunatha, S/o Late Mahadevappa, Age: 58 Years, R/o Gunderi village, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District.     (Rep by Sri. Thippeswamy. N, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The General Manager, The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Doule Road, Bellary.   (Rep by Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.2,39,779 with interest at 16% p.a and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the owner of vehicle TATA ACE bearing Reg.No.KA-16-C-4117 and the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.3003/TM00342895/00/000 valid for the period from 31.10.2015 to 30.10.2016.  It is further submitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 12.07.2015 near Dummi-Koratagere cross on NH 13.   Due to the said accident, the vehicle of the complainant fully damaged.  The Holalkere Police have registered a case in CR No.250/2016 for the offences punishable u/Sec.279 and 337 of IPC.  Soon after the accident, the complainant intimated the same to OP.  The OP deputed surveyor to assess the damage, thee surveyor of the OP inspected the said vehicle at showroom and took photos and issued a report on 19.07.2016 by receiving Rs.4,000/- assessing the total loss at Rs.76,779/-.  The complainant has incurred Rs.3,000/- for toeing charges and Rs.10,000/- paid towards parking charges to the Prerana Motors.  It is further submitted that, soon after completion of all the formalities, the complainant submitted the documents to the OP for settlement of the claim but, the OP instead of settling the claim sent a repudiation letter to the complainant on 13.08.2016 stating that, “at the time of loss your vehicle was carrying more than the registered seating capacity in the vehicle, this is violation of policy limitations to use term of the policy”.  The repudiation of the claim made by the complainant is highly illegal, improper and against to the well-established principles of law and natural justice, which is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the complainant suffered from financial loss and mental agony.  The cause of action to file this complaint arise on 12.07.2016 and on 13.08.2016 the date of repudiation which are within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, prayed for allowing of the complaint.    

3.      On service of notice, OP appeared before this Forum through Advocate Sri.B.M. Ravichandra and filed version denying the allegations made in para 2 to 9 of the complaint.  It is submitted that, the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  It is true that, the complainant is the RC owner of vehicle TATA LGV bearing Reg.No.KA-16-C-4117 and the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.3003/TM00342895/00/000 valid for the period from 31.10.2015 to 30.10.2016 for ID value of Rs.3,74,214/-, which covers one paid driver and one owner of the goods only with seating capacity of 1 + 1.  The policy was in force as per the terms and conditions.  The complainant intimated about accident on 19.07.2016 to the OP stating that, the vehicle met with an accident on 12.07.2016 near Holalkere.  The OP appointed a surveyor to conduct the survey of the damaged vehicle.  The OP asked the complainant to produce entire police records, insurance policy, RC, estimate of repairs, DL of the driver with claim form.  For that the complainant has given all the documents along with claim form.  It is further submitted that, after receiving the claim form, estimation and police papers, OP appointed one Sri. M. Murugendraiah, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for conducting final survey, who conducted the final survey and given his report on 26.07.2016 assessing the loss of the vehicle for Rs.31,339-25, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy giving a note that, the vehicle is a goods carriage (LGV) and its seating capacity is only 2 but, at the time of accident was carrying 4 persons i.e., more than its seating capacity, which is violation of the terms and conditions of the MV Act.  Therefore, the OP has repudiated the claim made by the complainant and there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-8 were got marked.  On behalf of OP one Sri. Anand Nadagoundar, Legal Manager has examined as RW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.B-1 to B-3 were got marked.    

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant is the owner of vehicle TATA ACE bearing Reg.No.KA-16-C-4117.  The same has been insured with the OP under policy No.3003/TM00342895/00/000 for the period from 31.10.2015 to 30.10.2016.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.07.2015 near Dummi-Koratagere cross on NH 13 and fully damaged.  Soon after the accident, the complainant intimated the same to OP.  OP deputed surveyor to assess the damage, the surveyor of the OP inspected the said vehicle at showroom and took photos and issued report on 19.07.2016 assessing the total loss at Rs.76,779/-.  The complainant has incurred Rs.3,000/- for toeing charges and Rs.10,000/- paid towards parking charges to the Prerana Motors.  After completion of all the formalities, the complainant submitted the documents to the OP for settlement of the claim.  The OP sent a repudiation letter to the complainant on 13.08.2016 stating that, “at the time of loss your vehicle was carrying more than the registered seating capacity in the vehicle, this is violation of policy limitations to use term of the policy” which is highly illegal, improper and against to the principles of natural justice.

 9.     In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like FIR marked as Ex.A-1, Spot Mahazar marked as Ex.A-2, Vehicle Inspection Mahazar marked as Ex.A-3, Charge Sheet No.213/2016 marked as Ex.A-4, Motor Vehicles Accident Report marked as Ex.A-5, Repudiation letter dated 13.08.2016 marked as Ex.A-6, Tax Invoice marked as Ex.A-7 and Three receipts for having payment towards repair of the vehicle marked as Ex.A-8. 

10.    OP has argued admits that, the complainant is the RC owner of vehicle TATA LGV bearing Reg.No.KA-16-C-4117.  The same has been insured with the OP under policy No.3003/TM00342895/00/000 for the period from 31.10.2015 to 30.10.2016 for ID value of Rs.3,74,214/- covering one paid driver and one owner with seating capacity of 1 + 1.  The complainant intimated about accident on 19.07.2016 to the OP stating that, the vehicle met with an accident on 12.07.2016 near Holalkere.  The OP appointed a surveyor to conduct the survey of the damaged vehicle.  The complainant has produced all the documents along with claim form as called by the OP.  After receiving the claim form with documents, OP appointed one Sri. M. Murugendraiah, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for conducting final survey, who conducted the final survey and given his report on 26.07.2016 assessing the loss of the vehicle for Rs.31,339-25, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy giving a note that, the vehicle is a goods carriage (LGV), its seating capacity is only 2 but, at the time of accident it was carrying 4 persons i.e., more than its seating capacity, which is violation of the terms and conditions of the MV Act. 

11.    In support of its contention, the OP has filed affidavit evidence of its Manager (Legal) and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like Final Survey report marked as Ex.B-1, RC marked as Ex.B-2 and Insurance Claim Form for Motor Vehicle marked as Ex.B-3.

12.   On hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant has taken insurance policy to his vehicle TATA ACE bearing Reg.No.KA-16-C-4117 from the OP under policy No.3003/TM00342895/00/000 for the period from 31.10.2015 to 30.10.2016.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.07.2015 near Dummi-Koratagere cross on NH 13 and fully damaged.  Soon after the accident, the complainant intimated the same to OP.  OP deputed surveyor to assess the damage, the surveyor of the OP inspected the said vehicle and issued report on 19.07.2016.  The complainant has incurred Rs.3,000/- for toeing charges and Rs.10,000/- paid towards parking charges to the Prerana Motors.  The OP sent a repudiation letter to the complainant on 13.08.2016 stating that, “at the time of loss your vehicle was carrying more than the registered seating capacity in the vehicle, this is violation of policy limitations to use term of the policy”.  We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OPs.  According to the complainant as per Ex.A-7, the repair charge is of Rs.76,779/- and also, the complainant has produced three receipts as per Ex.A-8 it clearly shows that, the complainant has paid the amount to the Prerana Motors.  The OP has taken a contention that, at the time of accident, the vehicle was carrying three persons i.e., more than the seating capacity, which is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant has relied on a decision reported in 2004 CCJ 485 (NC) in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Rajkumar Gupta wherein it has been held that, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) deficiency in service – compensation – Motor insurance – repudiation of claim – damage to truck in accident – insurance company contended – that truck was carrying 13 persons contrary to the terms of the policy – it was not disputed that travelling of 13 persons in the vehicle did not contribute to the accident – Whether insurance company was deficient in its service in repudiating the claim – Held: yes; insurance company should have settled the claim as non-standard claim at 75% of the insured amount.  In this case, the ID value of the vehicle is of Rs.3,74,214/-.  The 75% of the ID value comes to Rs.2,80,660/-.  But, the complainant has claimed in his complaint for Rs.2,39,779/- with interest at the rate of 16%.  The Forum has to stick-on to the said amount of Rs.2,39,779/-only.  Hence, in our considered view, the OP has committed a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in settling the claim made by the complainant.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.           

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,39,779/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 01/04/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. Anand Nadagoundar, Manager (Legal) of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	Spot Mahazar
03	Ex-A-3:-	Vehicle Inspection Mahazar
04	Ex-A-4:-	Charge Sheet No.213/2016
05	Ex-A-5:-	Motor Vehicles Accident Report
06	Ex-A-6:-	Repudiation letter dated 13.08.2016
07	Ex-A-7:-	Tax Invoice
08	Ex.A-8:-	Three receipts for having payment towards repair of the vehicle

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Final Survey report
02	Ex-B-2:-	RC
03	Ex-B-3:-	Insurance Claim Form for Motor Vehicle

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**