.::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.13/2019.
Date of filing: 22.03.2019.
Date of disposal:21.10.2023.
P R E S E N Ts:-
(1) Shri. MabuSahebH.Chabbi,
B.Com.,LL.B.,(Spl.),
President.,
(2)Kum. Kavita,
M.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.),
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S 1. Shivaji S/o Mohanrao Manaji,
Age:59 years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o Vilage Halhalli Tq:Aurad-B, Dist:Bidar.
(By Sri.S.B.Wadde. Adv.)
V/s
OPPONENT/S 1. The Manager, IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Company, office at 1st floor,
above SHIVAM Medical Stores,
Havappa Complex, shivanagar,
South Bidar-585402.
2. The IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Insurance Company
customer service centre, Shanti towers,
5th Floor, 141 3rd main, East of NGEF layout,
Kasturi Nagar Banglaore-5600043.
3. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company,
Regd. Office, “IFFCO SADAN” C-1,
District Centre, saket, NEW DELHI-110017.
4. Executive Officer, primary Co.Op. and
Agriculture Rural Development Bank Ltd.,
Main Road, near KEKRTC Bus stand,
Aurad-B, Dist:Bidar.
(By OP No.2 S.Wilson and
OP NO.4 Hanumantaraya.S. and
OP No.1 Ex-parte and OP No.3 Dismissed)
::J U D G M E N T::
By Kum.Kavita, Member.
The complainant approached this Commission by filing complaint U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opponents for deficiency of service in not settling the insurance claim by Ops. Hence, passed the following judgement.
Brief facts of the complaint.
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: -
1. The complainant has purchased Tractor Bearing Its Reg.No.KA.38/3834 and Trailer No.KA.38/3836, on 16.02.2017 from the loan sanctioned by OP No.4 for Rs.8,90,000/-. The said Tractor and trailer insured with OP No.1 to 3 with package policy. The period of insurance is from 10.02.2017 to 09.02.2018, bearing policy No.50556300 for an ID value of Rs.9,36,000/-, and one Rayba Tanaji Sindhe holding valid D.L. and plied the above said Tractor. On 21.11.2017 after completion of the agriculture work in the land at Yedur village Tq:Degloor Dist:Nanded (MS) near to his native Halhalli Tq:Aurad Dist:Bidar kept the above said vehicle as it found heat, immediately fire took place by electric circuit and resulted total burnt of the Tractor. The same has been reported to Police Station they have conducted panchanama and recorded in statement of witness and obtained photos of burnt Tractor. As the policy is in force and required documents with mechanic report submitted to the Ops. The total damage for Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by the complainant and the complainant informed the same to OP No.4 the banker. The OP No.1 to 3 deputed a surveyor by name Shivraj Anandwade and verified losses caused to the vehicle of the complainant. The OP No.1 to 3 asked for some documents but the complainant submitted that, those documents were with the banker OP No.4. Despite of compliances by the complainant the OP No.1 to 3 have not settle the claim of insurance and issued legal notice to the Ops but, they have not answered to the notice or settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, this compliant filed by complainant for claiming compensation and damages from the Ops.
2. Subsequent to service of summons on OP No.1 and 2 the OP No.2 appeared through his counsel and submitted his W.V. but OP No.1 and 4 remained absent before this commission and they were placed ex-parte. The complainant has not taken steps against OP No.3 and the compliant dismissed as against OP No.3 by this commission, subsequently the complainant filed application to institute the complaint against Op No.4 and application was allowed by this commission and OP No.4 came on record through his counsel and filed his W.V.
Written Version of OP.No.2.
3. The OP No.2 contended that, the compliant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum where the Ops are diligent and prompt in execution of their duties. The complainant wrongly dragon the OP No.2 unnecessarily and the compliant is liable to dismiss. Soon after the information about the fire incident to the vehicle of the complainant the OP No.2 appointed Shivraj Anandwade on 06.03.2018, to make the assessment of the damage and to submit report and surveyor visited on 13.03.2018, conducted survey and submitted the report to the company. The surveyor assess the damage of Rs.8,64,874.05/- paisa, and the same was informed to the complainant to furnish the document to process the claim. Two reminder letters issued to the complainant to furnish documents but, the complainant not furnished any documents and filed this compliant against OP without any reason. The complainant violated the conditions of the insurance policy. The above said Tractor supposed to plied on in Karnataka agricultural purpose were in the fire incident took place in the limits of Maharashtra State, by landing the tractor on rent, which is not perishable under the conditions of the insurance policy. Thereby the complainant violated the insurance policy conditions. The allegation about the burnt of Tractor is denied by the OP No.2 the complainant has not filed complete documents to settle his claim. There is no cause of action against P No.2. The complainant has fail to furnish the RC Book, cancellation letter and hence damages could not be paid to him the OP No.2 is ready to pay damages subject to furnishing required of documents. The complaint is premature and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Written Version of OP.No.4.
4. The OP No.4 submitted that, though the tractor was insured with OP No.2, the premium was paid by OP NO.4. The complainant intimated the incident of burnt of his vehicle to the OP No.4 in a later stage, when OP No.4 insist the complainant to repay the loan then he disclosed the incident. The OP NO.4 advanced the loan to the complainant and paid the premium to the OP No.2 the said tractor and trally duly hypothecated under hire purchase agreement between OP No.4 and complainant. The OP No.4 is entitled for claim amount towards the repayment of loan amount by the complainant. OP No.2 has to indemnify OP NO.4 towards the repayment of loan amount of the complainant. The compliant has not paid any installment of loan to the OP No.4 bank and hence, the OP No.4 is entitled for amount from OP No.2 in view of loan amount due from the complainant.
Evidence of complainant.
5. The complainant himself examined by filing his evidence affidavit on 05.04.2021, as P.W. 1and again the further evidence affidavit also been filed by complainant on 06.03.2023 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10(a) which are as follows,
- Ex.P.1-Copy of B-register extract issued by RTO Bidar.
- Ex.P.2&2(a)-Copies of registration certificates of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA.38T/3836 and KA.38T/3834.
- Ex.P.3-Copy of insurance schedule issued by P NO.2 in the name of complainant.
- Ex.P.3(a)-Visible copy of Ex.P.3.
- Ex.P.4- 05 photos regarding burnt Tractor.
- Ex.P.5-Copy of D.L. in the pertaining to Rayba Sindhe.
- Ex.P.6-Copy of estimate cost for repair of Tractor issued by Karanja Tractors.
- Ex.P.7&8-Copies of reminder letter issued by OP No.2 to the complainant dt:20.03.2018 and 20.07.2018.
- Ex.P.9-Copy of legal notice issue dby complainant advocate to the Ops.
- Ex.P.9 (A to d)-postal receipt.
- Ex.P.10-Copy of Crime details Form in Marathi Language.
- Ex.P.10(a)-Copy of translation in English of Ex.P.10.
6. The Ops have not adduced their evidence and produced any documents despite of giving sufficient opportunity to them.
7. This Commission heard complainant and perused pleadings of the parties and documents on record, and the points/issues that, arose for our consideration are as follows.
Points/Issues.
- Whether the complainant/s proves that, he is the consumer to Ops and further proves any deficiency in service on the part of Ops?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief/order? If so, What orders?
8. Our answers to the points raised above are as follows: -
- In the affirmative.
- In the affirmative and as per the final order.
9. In order to decide the complaint issues, this commission discussed points/issues No.1 and 2 altogether for discussion as both points are inter related to each other- as follows.
10. The case of the complainant that, he has purchased the Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA.38/3834 and KA.38/3836 on 16.02.2017, from the loan sanctioned by OP No.4 for Rs.8,90,000/- and got insured the vehicle by purchasing the policy NO.50556300 from OP NO.1 and 2 having I.D value of Rs.9,36,000/- and appointed a driver by name Rayba Tanaji Shindhe who is having valid driving license. To substantiate this fact the complainant produced Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.2(a) the ‘B’ Register extract and certificate of Registration which depicts the name of complainant and Registration number of Tractor and Trailer. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.3(a) are the package policy copies issued by OP No.1 and 2 in the name of complainant which covers the period from 10.02.2017 to 09.02.2018 with an IDV value for both Tractor and Trailor for Rs.9,36,000/-. The Ops have not denied Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3(a) documents and its contents by Ops and hence complainant proved that, he is consumer to the OP No.1 and 2 and OP No.1 and 2 are the service providers to the complainant.
11. The complainant contended that the above mentioned Tractor burnt due to electric circuit and sustained loss to the complainant. The complainant informed to the OPs regarding the incident of fire to his vehicle and to the police. The police Registered case in F.R.No.3/2017 by Markhel Police and conducted spot panchanama, recorded the statements of witness and also taken photos of burnt Tractor the complainant produced Ex.P.10 crime detail Form in Marathi and Ex.P.10(a) the English translation, also produced photos as per Ex.P.4, (5photos) which shows the damages and loss to the vehicle due to fire incident.
12. The OP No.2 in his W.V. not denied the incident in question. The OP No.2 appointed Surveyor to assess the loss to the complainant. The surveyor submitted a report assessing the damage to the complainants vehicle to the extent of Rs.8,64,874.05 paisa. The OP No.2 contended that, he did not repudiate the claim of the complainant, but issued letter to the complainant to furnish the required documents for settling the claim as per Ex.P.7&8 but complainant did not complied the same and submit that this complaint is premature and claim to dismiss the compliant. The OP No.1,2 and 4 were not produced any evidence or documents before this commission but, the complainant produced Ex.p.9 the copy of legal notice dt:14.01.2019, issued to the Ops stating that, he has produced all the required documents as per Ex.P.7 & 8 to the Ops but they have not settled the claim of the complainant. The complainant produced Ex.P.9(a) to Ex.P.9(d) the registered postal receipt which shown to be the notice Ex.P.9 issued to Ops. The Ops not denied the notice and its contents and also not settled the claim of the complainant.
13. The OP No.2 contended the case of the complaint is premature, but on going through the Ex.P.9 notice issued by the complainant to the OPs clearly goes to show that, the Ops neither settle the claim nor answered for the Ex.P.9 notice of the complainant. In view of this circumstances the case of the complainant cannot be treated as premature. The OP No.4 has submitted his W.V. that, the complainant has obtained loan from them and sought the reimbursement of loan through insurance company OP No.1 and 2, but the OP No.4 also not adduced any evidence before this commission.
14. The complainant produced Ex.P.5 the driving license which is in the name of Rayba Shindhe, valid till 19.12.2032, who is the driver of above said Tractor of the complainant. The complainant produced Ex.p.6 the Estimate cost for repair of Tractor dt: 05.03.2018 for total estimate cost for Rs.10,08,159/- but, the complainant has not produced any bills and vouchers for the repairs conducted to the vehicle. However, the Op No.2 himself admitted the fact of damage to the said vehicle due to fire incident through its Surveyor report and in his W.V. Para No.3 stated that, the loss and damage to the said vehicle of the complainant assessed to Rs.8,64,874.05 paisa. Though the complainant not produced any bills and vouchers regarding repairs of said vehicle except Ex.P.6 the estimate of repair of Tractor, the OP No.1 and 2 are liable to pay an amount of Rs.8,64,874/- in view of admission given in Para No.3 of their W.V. based on their surveyor report and the complainant is entitle for the damages to the extent of Rs.8,64,874/- From OP NO.1 and 2.
15. The complainant in his evidence affidavit dt:06.03.2023 deposed and authorised OP NO.4 to claim the insurance amount to clear the outstanding loan with OP No.4. In view of the facts and circumstances laced before this commission, the complainant proved his case and we answered point No.1and 2 in the affirmative in favor of complainant and hence, we proceed to pass the following.
::ORDER::
The complaint filed by complainant U/s 12 of C.P.Act 1986 is allowed in part.
The OP NO.1 and 2 are hereby payable the claim of the complainant for Rs.8,64,874/- (Rupees eight lakh sixty four thousand eight hundred seventy four only) under Ex.P.3=Ex.P.3(a) policy No.50556300 to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% P.A from Ex.P.9 the legal notice dt:14.01.2019 till its realisation to complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay the above said amount with interest to the loan account of the complainant at OP NO.4 bank and OP No.4 is directed to issue NOC and return concerned records to the complainant after clearance of loan arrears of complainant by OP No.1 and 2.
After adjusting the loan of the complainant with OP No.4 if any amount is remained in excess to the arrears of loan, the same may be returned with above said interest to the complainant. The OP No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- with litigation charge of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Commission on this 21st day of October-2023).
Kum. Kavita, Member DCDRC Bidar. | | Shri.MabuSaheb H. Chabbi, President DCDRC Bidar. | |
Documents produced by the complainant.
- Ex.P.1-Copy of B-register extract issued by RTO Bidar.
- Ex.P.2&2(a)-Copies of registration certificates of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA.38T/3836 and KA.38T/3834.
- Ex.P.3-Copy of insurance schedule issued by P NO.2 in the name of complainant.
- Ex.P.3(a)-Visible copy of Ex.P.3.
- Ex.P.4- 05 photos regarding burnt Tractor.
- Ex.P.5-Copy of D.L. in the pertaining to Rayba Sindhe.
- Ex.P.6-Copy of estimate cost for repair of Tractor issued by Karanja Tractors.
- Ex.P.7&8-Copies of reminder letter issued by OP No.2 to the complainant dt:20.03.2018 and 20.07.2018.
- Ex.P.9-Copy of legal notice issue dby complainant advocate to the Ops.
- Ex.P.9 (A to d)-postal receipt.
- Ex.P.10-Copy of Crime details Form in Marathi Language.
- Ex.P.10(a)-Copy of translation in English of Ex.P.10.
Document produced by the Opponen.
-Nil-
Witness examined.
Complainant.
P.W.1- Shivaji S/o Mohanrao Manaji, (complainant).
Opponent.
-Nil-
Kum. Kavita, Member DCDRC Bidar. | | Shri.MabuSaheb H. Chabbi, President DCDRC Bidar. |
