BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 76/11.
THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Mariyamma W/o Hanumesh, Age: 35 years, Occ:
Household, R/o. Madlapur village, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.
Ltd., Sudeva Plaza, 3rd floor, Dhagibanpeth, Opp: Laxmi Temple Hubli- 280029.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposite to pay an amount of
Rs. 4,42,193/- with interest towards damage to the insured vehicle, to pay compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- with other reliefs, as deems fit to the circumstances of this case
Date of institution :- 02-11-11.
Notice served :- 04-11-11.
Date of disposal :- 30-03-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. T.M. Swamy, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. M. Nagaraj, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Mariyamma against the opposite IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 4,42,193/- with interest towards damage to the insured vehicle, to pay compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- with other reliefs, as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, she is the owner in possession of vehicle bearing chassis No. MAIPS 2GA KA 2 F 92600 having temporary registration No. KA-32/NT/5898 insured with opposite Insurance Company for a period of one year from 14-07-2010 to 13-07-2011. On 29-03-2011 at about 9:30 AM, the said vehicle met with an accident near Maruti Nagar on Sindhanoor-Raichur Main Road. Her vehicle completely damaged, thereafter, in the evening’s he filed a complaint before the police, after failure of compromise tasks with offending vehicle owner, thereafter she filed claim petition along with necessary records to opposite for to pay the cost of the damage which got repaired by her. But opposite illegally repudiated her claim and thereby, it found guilty under deficiency in its service, accordingly, he prayed for to grant the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.
3. The opposite Insurance Company appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed its written version by denying the allegations, but it is contended that, the vehicle was purchased by the complainant with temporary registration number of Gulbarga, RTO. The said temporary registration was valid upto 31-07-2010, thereafter complaint being the owner of the said vehicle not registered permanently with RTO. So, the complainant has violated terms and conditions of the policy, as such, it is not responsible for to indemnify the loss sustained by her due to damage to her vehicle in the accident and prayed for to reject this complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, her vehicle Mahindra Bolero SGX-BS with its temporary No. KA-32/NT-5898 insured with opposite Insurance Company met with an accident on 29-03-2011 at about 9:30 AM near Maruti Nagar on Sindhanoor-Raichur Main Road and due to the said accident, her vehicle badly damaged and thereby, she got repaired, but Insurance Company repudiated her claim on untenable grounds and thereby Opposite Insurance Company found guilty under deficiency in its service.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NOs.1 &2 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, she was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of one witness by name Basavaraj was filed, he was noted as PW-2. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of executive officer of opposite was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked.
7. In view of the pleadings of the pleadings of the parties, their respective affidavit-evidences, and documents, we are of the view that, some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties:-
1. The ownership of the complaint over the Mahindra Bolero SGX BS bearing registration No. KA-32/NT-5898 is not in dispute.
2. Similarly coverage of Insurance of the said vehicle by the opposite Insurance Company under comprehensive Insurance policy for a period from 14-07-2010 to 13-07-2011 is also not in dispute.
3. Accident of the said vehicle on 29-03-2011 at about 9:30 AM on Sindhanoor-Raichur Main Road is not in dispute and also damage to the vehicle intimation of the accident and repair of the said vehicle by the complainant are also not in dispute.
4. It is also not in dispute that, Opposite Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant.
8. In the back ground of these disputed facts, we have to appreciate the evidence of parties, with regard to deficiency in service said to have committed by the Opposite Insurance Company in settling the claim of the complainant as alleged by her in this complainant.
9. Some of the documents namely, copies of the Insurance Policy correspondence made between the complainant and opposite Insurance Company are not referred by us. In view of the above undisputed facts in between the parties.
10. The only one ground shown for repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Opposite Insurance Company is that, at the time of accident i.e, on 29-03-2011, the said vehicle was running on the road without permanent registration number issued by the competent authority. Temporary registration issued by competent authority expired on 31-07-2010, much prior to the date of accident. This is the clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated.
11. It is not in disputed that temporary registration of said vehicle was expired on 31-07-2010, thereafter the said vehicle was not permanently registered and it was being used on the date of accident i.e, on 29-03-2011.
12. Whether this aspect is sufficient for opposite to repudiate the claim of the complainant, or whether opposite’s contention is untenable are the only material points left remain for our consideration.
13. According to the Advocate for complainant repudiation of the claim of the complainant is illegal, opposites cannot take such contention for to repudiate the claim, it might be an offence under M.V. Act, but it will not termed as complaint violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
14. The learned advocate for opposite, submitted before us that, the complainant has no legal justification to claim the amount with regard to damage to her vehicle. Because she herself violated of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and allowed the said vehicle to run on the road, without permanent registration number as such Opposite Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
15. In support of the contentions of the learned advocate for complainant, he relied on the ruling reported in 2007 CPJ 274 (NC) HDFC-HUBB General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. ILA Gutpa & Another.
16. The learned advocate for opposite not submitted any authorities, in support of his submissions.
17. In the ruling referred above, the Hon’ble National Commission held as;
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986__ Section 2(1)(g)__Insurance__Hefty premium charged to insure Mercedez car__ Repudiation on flimsy grounds__ Plea, vehicle did not have permanent registration number__ Not acceptable__ Non registration of vehicle did not lead to accident__ If O.P., were so strict about said conditions they should have cancelled policy within reasonable time after bringing it to knowledge of complainant__ Same not been done__Repudiation unjustified__ Insurer liable”.
18. On careful reading of the facts of that case we are of the view that, facts of that case are similar to the facts of the present case on hand. Their lordships of the Hon’ble National Commission, clearly held that, Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim only on the ground that, complainant had no permanent registration number. Their lordships further observed that, such grounds are flimsy grounds.
19. We are of the clear view that, the facts of that case are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. In the instant case opposite insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the ground that, the said vehicle was not having permanent registration number on the date of accident. The reason given by the Insurance Company for such repudiation is not acceptable. It appears to us that, Opposite Insurance Company repudiated the claim of complainant on flimsy grounds. Hence, complainant has proved the guilty of deficiency of service by the opposites and thereby we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
20. As regards to Point No-2 is concerned, complainant filed loss estimation by Sutaria Auto Center, Hubli total estimation cost is shown as Rs. 4,42,193/-. The learned advocate for Opposite Insurance Company submitted before us that, surveyor was appointed, he assessed the damage and noted in his report Ex.P-2 which is to the extent of Rs. 2,73,000/-.
21. In view of the circumstances stated above, the first point for our consideration is whether, the amount shown in estimation issued vide Ex.P-11 is to be accepted as the complainant sustained loss of that amount for getting repaired her vehicle or whether we have to accept the amount noted in the survey report Ex.R-2.
22. Principally we have to go for surveyors report Ex.R-2, to know the extent of loss in the absence of any other material evidences to reject it.
23. The learned advocate for complainant filed, copies of the two judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission, which are noted as under:
1) Appeal No. 1084/2010 Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Sankrayya Swamy.
2) Appeal No. 4101/2009 Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Krishna. These two rulings are out coming from the Hon’ble State Commission out of the judgments of this District Consumer Forum.
24. The learned advocate for complainant also relied on, another ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2009) CPJ 230 (NC) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Mehrachand.
25.. From the submissions made on both sides, and also on perusal of surveyor’s report Ex.R-2, we have not noticed from the surveyor’s report at Ex.R-2 sufficient reasons as to how and why he not relied on estimation regarding cost of repairs Ex.P-11 which is a document issued by the authorized garage. Here the garage in which the complainant got repaired her vehicle is Sutaria Auto Center is a authorized garage, which is not indispute by the other side. Admittedly opposite not filed any affidavit-evidence of the said surveyor in support of its contentions, in the said circumstances we have no hesitation in accepting Ex.P-11 which is an estimation of damages of vehicle and replacement charges as shown in the said estimation report Ex.P-11 complainant got repaired, her vehicle to the cot of Rs. 4,42,193/-. Admittedly the Insurance policy was inforce on the date of accident, as such the opposite insurance company has to indemnify an amount of Rs. 4,42,193/- to the complainant. As regard to the deficiency in service is concerned, we have awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- Totally complainant is entitled for Rs. 4,45,193/-, complainant is entitled to recover interest on the said amount at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. Accordingly we answered Point No-2.
POINT NO.3:-
26. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 4,45,193/- from Opposite Insurance Company.
The complainant also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 4,45,193/- form the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.
Opposite Insurance Company is given one month time, from the date of this judgment to make the payment.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-03-2012)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
