BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 28th January 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C. No.11/2014
(Admitted on 04.01.2014)
Mr. Abubakkar, (Adult)
S/o Mohammed,
H.No. 8.2.16/2,
Ward No. 18,
Milagress, Mangalore 575 001.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri NK)
VERSUS
The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Light House Hill Road,
Mangalore 575 001.
…..............OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri BG)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite party alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant claims the vehicle purchased by him on 26.2.2009 a Honda City Car had insured over issued by opposite party met with an accident at 11.30 pm on 15.12.2012 it took 3 days for lifting the vehicle from the capsized spot due to non-availability of crane which was then taken to Honda Showroom Kottara to estimate repair charges at Rs.11 lakhs and then shifted to Shree Durga Padma Auto Works near Maroli, Mangalore who prepared estimate on 15.1.2013 in vehicle has suffered a total loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- due to an accident. When the claim was the opposite party after a delay of 2 months 10 days on 26.3.2013 repudiated the claim of complainant. Hence contending that opposite party under the terms and conditions of the policy is duty bound indemnify the complainant seeks the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.
II. Opposite party on entering appearance filed written version contending that the complainant committed breach of condition no.1 of the policy. There was 31 days delay in intimating the alleged loss to Opposite party when intimation was given on 15.1.2013 in view of violation of the condition no.1 complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs. The alleged accident of 15.12.2012 at 11.30 pm and estimated repair charges for Rs.11 lakhs were all denied. Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. Abubakkar filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C3 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Karthik M (RW1) Asst. Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?.
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): The complainant had insured his vehicle with opposite party as per Ex.C3 the copy of the insurance policy covering the risk from the period of alleged accident is not disputed. The claim laid by complainant or indemnification of the repair charges of the accident that took place as per complainant on 15.10.2012 at 11:30 pm that was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground of violation of condition no.1. Hence there is dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2(1)(e) of the C P Act. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS NO (ii): The complainant alleges the occurring of the accident on 15.12.2012 at 11.30 pm when his driver suddenly applied breaks due to a cow crossing with the road the vehicle capsized down resulting the damages to the vehicle. He also mentions soon after he inform the opposite party who informed him to bring the repair estimation in order to make a claim. However the complainant did not mention at what time and by what means he informed opposite party about the accident immediately after the incident. There is no mention as to how the information over phone or in person and if it was in person to whom the information was conveyed.
2. If that was not sufficient the complainant claims the vehicle capsized at Manipal resulting in severe damage to the vehicle. There is no reason mentioned by the complainant why a complaint to the police of the incident was not lodged. If there was an accident as alleged by the complainant even according to complainant there was 3 days delay in shifting the vehicle from the spot to this Honda showroom and from there it was shifted to another garage at near Maroli Mangalore. It is only after shifting to the garage at Maroli on 15.12.2012 they prepare the estimation and with that estimation the complainant gave in writing to the opposite party about the incident of damage caused to the vehicle.
3. It was argued by learned counsel for complainant the delay was caused as there was delay in bringing the vehicle from Manipal to Mangalore. However the reason mentioned for delay on this count cannot be accepted as delay caused in shifting the damaged vehicle to the showroom cannot be considered as just and proper reason as it does not amount to incapability of the complainant to intimate the insurance company about the damages caused to the vehicle.
4. During the course of argument the learned counsel for complainant argued that the estimated cost of repair work is Rs.5,92,759/- and the value of mention is Rs.2,00,000/- and claim for Rs.5,00,000/- was made. It is also pointed out that the original invoice bills were submitted to opposite party along with the claims form but they have not produced them before the Forum. However, it is to noted the repudiation is not for the want of the production of the invoice bills by the complainant.
5. The only point urged for opposite party for repudiation is failure of complainant to inform opposite party immediately after the accident as required under clause no.1 of the policy refer in the written version itself was drawn to the relevant portion in the policy the copy of which is at Ex.C3. The relevant portion reads thus:
In the unfortunate event of a claim, please call along with your Policy No. on 1800 103 1999 (toll free) or 022 41112600 (Standard STD Rates Apply) and register your claim immediately within 7 days from the date of loss. For customer service, please call along with your Policy No. on 1800 300 28282 (toll free) or 39898282 (local charges apply) /www.reliancegeneral.co.in
6. It was pointed out for complainant that the above portion is not mentioned as a condition of policy for making a successful claim for the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred for repairs. Of course there is no such specific mention made at Ex.C3. However considering that the relevant portion quoted from Ex.C3 in fact is highlighted in the policy when considered with the inordinate unacceptable delay in intimating the opposite party about the accident that to without being any complaint lodged to the police immediately soon after the accident occurred in our view the repudiation of the claim made by complainant is justified. Hence we answer point No. 2 in the negative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28th January 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Abubakkar
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1:Office copy of the Legal Notice
Ex.C2: Acknowledgement Card
Ex.C3: Xerox copy of the insurance Policy
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. Karthik M, Asst. Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 28.01.2017 PRESIDENT
