Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/10/2016

Shri.K.B.Chandrappa S/o. K.H.Basavarajappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.M.Shivakumar

02 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 02/02/2016

     DISPOSED ON: 02/09/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 10/2016 DATED:  2nd September 2016

 

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

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   

COMPLAINANT	K.B. Chandrappa, S/o K.H. Basavarajappa, R/o Maszid road, Nehru Nagar, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. M. Shiva Kumar, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTY	The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Opp. KSRTC Bus Stop, Davanagere Road, Chitradurga      (ex-parte)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OP for a direction to the OP to pay compensation of Rs.11,000/-, Rs.25,000/- with mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.  

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, he insured his motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 L 1085 from OP.  On 25.08.2014, the said motor cycle met with an accident and a complainant has been registered before the Rural Police Station, Chitradurga in Crime No.330/2014.   In the said accident the vehicle has been damaged.  The complainant intimated about the accident to the OP and the OP registered the same under claim No.472108/31/2015/000086 and appointed their surveyor by name Sri.Sathyanarayana to conduct survey.  As per the direction given by the surveyor, the complainant repaired his vehicle.  The surveyor issued final report as per law after obtaining photo and original bill for Rs.11,000/-, which the complainant spent for repairs to his vehicle.  Complainant approached the OP several times over phone and also in person.  But, the OP failed to settle or reject the claim made under the policy.  On 29.09.2015 OP informed the complainant stating that, they have settled the claim for Rs.2,300/- and to give voucher for the same.  Thereafter, complainant approached and enquired with the OP on what basis the claim has been settled for which, the OP has given untenable reply.  On 15.10.2015 complainant gave an application to give information about on what basis the claim has been settled and to give original bill, photo, original policy and original survey report but, the OP  replied nor returned the said documents and gave a notice to receive Rs.2,300/- by giving voucher, claiming additional documents and repudiated the claim of the complainant.  The conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency of service so, he sustained financial loss and mental agony and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

3. In spite of service of notice, OP nor appeared in person or through Advocate.  Hence, placed exparte.  

        4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and documents are marked at Ex.A-1 & Ex.A-2. 

5. Arguments heard.

 

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

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him and he is entitled for compensation as stated in his complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

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

 

        Point No.1:- Partly affirmative.

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

                                        ::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, complainant insured his motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 L 1085 from OP.  On 25.08.2014, the said motor cycle met with an accident and the same has been damaged in the said accident.  The Rural Police, Chitradurga registered a case in Crime No.330/2014.     The complainant intimated about the accident to the OP and registered the same under claim No.472108/31/2015/000086.  OP appointed their surveyor to conduct survey, who conducted survey and given a direction to the complainant to repair the said motor cycle.  The surveyor also issued final report as per law after obtaining photo and original bill for  Rs.11,000/-.  After, repairs, the complainant approached the OP several times over phone and also in person to settle the claim but, the OP failed to settle claim made under the policy.  On 29.09.2015 OP informed the complainant stating that, they have settled the claim for Rs.2,300/- and to give voucher for the same but, the complainant has repaired his vehicle by spending Rs.11,000/-.  On 29.09.2015, the OP written a letter to the complainant informing that, claim of the complainant has been settled for Rs. 2,300/- as per Ex.A-1.  On 15.10.2015 complainant gave an application to give information about on what basis the claim has been settled and to give original bill, photo, original policy and original survey report as per Ex.A-2 but, on the same day, the OP  gave a notice to receive Rs.2,300/- by giving voucher and repudiated the claim of the complainant, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  The dated 29.09.2015 by the OP indicates that, the claim made by the complainant has been settled on 01.06.2015 for Rs.2,300/- and the complainant had declined to accept the settlement amount, which shows that, the policy obtained by the complainant is in force and when the policy is in force and the OP has to indemnify the claim made by the complainant.  If the OP wants to repudiate the claim of the complainant, it has to produce the relevant documents by giving sufficient reasons.  Here the OP did not appear and produce any relevant documents to prove the same.   Therefore, the conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency of service.    The letter dated 15.10.2015 written by the complainant to OP indicates that, the complainant has given original policy, original bills and photos to OP.  If there is any dispute, the OP could appear before this Forum and produce the same.  It is the main contention of the complainant that, he made a claim to the OP by producing all the relevant documents and in spite of policy was in force, OP did not settle the claim but, sent a voucher for Rs.2,300/-, which the complainant declined to receive.  In view of the above said reasons, as on the date of accident, insurance policy was in force. In spite of the policy was in force, the claim made by the complainant has been repudiated, which is a deficiency of service.   Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as Partly Affirmative to the complainant.

 

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

ORDER

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

It is ordered that, the OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.11,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of complaint till realization.

 It is further ordered that, the OP is directed to pay a sum of  Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

  It is further ordered that, the OP is directed comply the above said order within two months from the date of this order.

 

        (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 02/09/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

                                                -Nil-

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

 -Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Copy of letter dated 20.03.2015 by OP No.2 to the RTO, CTA
02	Ex-A-2:-	Original copy of Policy

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Rhr.