Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/79/2016

Sri. Mahalingappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vidyadhar. S

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:17.08.2016

DISPOSED      ON:16.01.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 79/2016

 

DATED:  16^th JANUARY 2017

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

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Mahalingappa, S/o Lingappa, Age: 51 Years, Agriculturist, R/o Kaparahalli village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Rep by Sri.Vidyadhar.S, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.1 & 2, I Floor, Maganur Commercial Complex, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   (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.4,97,558 with interest at 12% p.a and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he has purchased Eicher Pro 1110HCAB bearing Reg.No.KA-16 C-1510 on 30.09.2014 with the financial assistance of Cholamandalam Finance Ltd., and the same has been insured with the OP by paying premium of Rs.35,782/- on the same day under policy No.1406542334003464 for the period from 30.09.2014 to 29.09.2015.  It is further submitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 20.01.2015 at about 1-00 AM near Thimmarajanahalli on NH-4 in between Sira and Tumkur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle.  The Kora Police have registered a case in C.Mis No.GSC No.PO.1091150600010 and the said Police have conducted mahazar in the presence of witnesses.  The same was intimated by the complainant to the OP through Cell Phone on the same day.  OP deputed a surveyor to assess the damaged vehicle.  The Surveyor took photos of the damaged vehicle and after inspection the OP advised to the complainant to shift the damaged vehicle to Lakshmi Motor Eicher Show room, Industrial Area, Chitradurga for repairs.  Accordingly, the complainant shifted the said damaged vehicle to the aforesaid showroom by towing by incurring an amount of Rs.10,000/-.  After dismantling of the damaged portion, once again the surveyor visited the spot and obtained the photos and told the complainant to get repair the vehicle.  It is further submitted that, on 09.11.2015 the complainant submitted claim form with estimation and other required documents for settlement of the claim through RPAD.  After receiving the documents, OP advised to the complainant to get repair the vehicle by making cash payment.  The complainant submitted the required original documents with list of expenditure list to the OP.  The complainant repaired the damaged vehicle by making cash payment of Rs.1,66,558/-, Rs.40,000/- for body building charges, Rs.6,000/- for tinkering expenses and Rs.10,000/- for towing charges, in all a sum of Rs.2,22,558/-.  It is further submitted that, the complainant visited the office of the OP in person and requested for making settlement as per policy terms but, the OP postponing the same on one or the other pretext.  It is further submitted that, the attitude of the OP in settlement of claim goes to show that, they are making unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and against the Principles of Consumer Protection Act.  It is further submitted that, the complainant got issued legal notice through his counsel by RPAD to the OP for settlement of the claim.  Even after receipt of the notice, OP neither replied nor settled the claim of the complainant.  The illegal act of the OP is against to the Principles of Natural Justice, which caused loss and mental agony to the complainant.  The complainant has spent nearly Rs.2,22,558/- for repair charges and further the complainant interest paid to the Cholamandalam Finance Ltd., of Rs.1,75,000/- for loss and mental agony for Rs.1,00,000/- in total Rs.4,97,558/-.  The cause of action to file this complaint arose on 30.09.2014 when the policy was issued by the OP to the complainant and subsequently, the vehicle met with an accident on 20.01.2015.  The OP is having the Branch Office within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,97,558 along with 12% interest within 30 days from the date of received the orders from this Forum. 

3.      On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate and filed version denying the entire averments made in para 2 to 12 of the complaint which are not specifically admitted and denied as false.  It is stated that, the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  It is further stated that, OP has issued goods carrying commercial vehicle package policy to the Eicher Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-16 C-1510 valid for the period from 30.09.2014 to 29.09.2015 in favour of one Mahalingappa S/o Ningappa covering own damage for IDV value for an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- and also covering third party injury, third party property damage as per the Act.  It is further submitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 20.01.2015 and the same was intimated to the OP through claim form on 21.01.2015.  OP appointed a Kiran Nayak who is a Surveyor and loss assessor and as per the intimation of the OP insurance company the surveyor visited the Sri Lakshmi Motors Service Ltd., at Chitradurga and he has intimated the complainant to intimate the OP or Surveyor after repair of the vehicle along with repair bills, payment bills and also for re-inspection of the vehicle.  Then the complainant produced the documents like Claim Form, Estimation, FIR, Policy, DL, Permit, FC, Adhar Card and Bank Pass Book etc., of Complainant.  But, the complainant has not submitted any repair bills and payments receipts and not given an opportunity to the OP or Surveyor for inspection of the vehicle.  After that, the OP has issued legal notice through RPAD on 18.05.2015, 11.06.2015, 30.06.2015, 21.07.2015 calling upon the complainant for production of repair bills, bill payment receipts and also for re-inspection of the vehicle.    Therefore, the OP closed the claim of the complainant.     Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP 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-10 were got marked. On behalf of OP No.1, one Sri.H.B. Guruprasad, S/o Basavarajaiah, Manager Legal, has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to B-9 documents have been 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 prove 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 has purchased Eicher Pro 1110HCAB bearing Reg.No.KA-16 C-1510 on 30.09.2014 with the financial assistance of Cholamandalam Finance Ltd., and the same has been insured with the OP by paying premium of Rs.35,782/- on the same day under policy No.1406542334003464 for the period from 30.09.2014 to 29.09.2015.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 20.01.2015 at about 1-00 AM near Thimmarajanahalli on NH-4 in between Sira and Tumkur.  The Kora Police have registered a case in C.Mis No.GSC No.PO.1091150600010 and conducted mahazar in the presence of witnesses.  The same was intimated by the complainant to the OP through Cell Phone on the same day.  The Surveyor of the OP took photos of the damaged vehicle and as per the advice of the OP Surveyor, the complainant shifted the said damaged vehicle to Lakshmi Motor Eicher Show room, Industrial Area, Chitradurga for repairs by incurring an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards towing charges.  After dismantling of the damaged portion, once again the surveyor visited the spot and obtained the photos and told the complainant to get repair the vehicle.  On 09.11.2015 the complainant submitted claim form with estimation and other required documents for settlement of the claim through RPAD, OP advised to the complainant to get repair the vehicle by making cash payment.  The complainant submitted the required original documents with list of expenditure to the OP.  The complainant repaired the damaged vehicle by making cash payment of Rs.1,66,558/-, Rs.40,000/- for body building charges, Rs.6,000/- for tinkering expenses and Rs.10,000/- for towing charges, in all a sum of Rs.2,22,558/- and requested the OP for making settlement as per policy terms but, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant, the same amounts to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and against the Principles of Consumer Protection Act.  The illegal act of the OP is 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 Policy marked as Ex.A-1, Police mahazar marked as Ex.A-2, Estimation Bill of Lakshmi Motors  for Rs.1,66,558/- marked as Ex.A-3, Body Building Bill for Rs.40,000/- marked as Ex.A-4, towing charge bill for Rs.10,000/- marked as Ex.A-5, tinkering bill for Rs.6,000/- marked as Ex.A-6, Office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.A-7, Reply to the reply notice marked as Ex.A-8 and Postal Receipt marked as Ex.A-9.

 10.   On the other hand, OP argued and denied the entire averments made in para 2 to 12 of the complaint which are not specifically admitted and denied as false and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  It is admitted that, OP has issued goods carrying commercial vehicle package policy to the Eicher Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-16 C-1510 valid for the period from 30.09.2014 to 29.09.2015 in favour of one Mahalingappa S/o Ningappa covering own damage for IDV value for an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- and also covering third party injury, third party property damage as per the Act.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 20.01.2015 and the same was intimated to the OP through claim form on 21.01.2015.  The Surveyor and loss assessor of the OP visited the Sri Lakshmi Motors Service Ltd., at Chitradurga and he has intimated the complainant to repair the vehicle and to furnish the repair bills, payment bills and also for re-inspection of the vehicle.  The complainant has not submitted any repair bills and payments receipts and not given an opportunity to the OP or Surveyor for inspection of the vehicle.  After that, the OP has issued legal notice through RPAD on 18.05.2015, 11.06.2015, 30.06.2015, 21.07.2015 calling upon the complainant for production of repair bills, bill payment receipts and also for re-inspection of the vehicle, but, the complainant failed to produce the same.  Hence, the OP closed the claim of the complainant.    

11.    In support of its contention, the OP has filed affidavit evidence of H.B. Guruprasad, S/o Basavarajaiah, the Manager Legal, Reliance General Insurance Company and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like copy of the policy marked as Ex.B-1, Claim Intimation marked as Ex.B-2, Claim Form marked as Ex.B-3, Adhar Card marked as Ex.B-4, Notices for inspection of the vehicle marked as Ex.B-5 to 8 and Postal receipt marked as Ex.B-9. 

12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties 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 Eicher lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-16 C-1510 for a period from 30.09.2014 to 29.09.2015 for an ID value of Rs.12,50,000/-.  The said lorry met with an accident on 20.01.2015 at about 1-00 AM at Thimmarajanahalli village on NH-4 in between Sira-Tumkur and the same has been damaged.  The same has been intimated by the complainant to the OP.  OP has deputed a surveyor to inspect the spot and submit the report.  One Kiran. V. Nayaka, the surveyor has inspected the spot and advised the complainant to leave the vehicle for repair before Lakshmi Motors, Chitradurga.  As per the advice of the surveyor, the complainant leave the vehicle for repair and the Lakshmi Motors have estimated a sum of Rs.1,66,558 towards repair charges, Rs.40,000/- for body building, Rs.6,000/- for tinkering.  After that, the complainant requested the OP to settle the claim by furnishing all the relevant documents.  Totally, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.4,97,558/-   including mental agony, interest paid to the finance company,  towing charges.  After receiving all the necessary documents from complainant by the OP, the OP repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that, the complainant has not produced the vehicle for re-inspection but, there is no specific clause in the policy mentioned that, the complainant has to produce the vehicle when called by the insurance company.  The case on hand is that, after repair the surveyor of the OP company has visited the Lakshmi Motors and inspected the repaired vehicle, such being the case, the question of re-production of the vehicle by the complainant for inspection does not arise.  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.  Further the OP has been admitted that, the policy was in force as on the date of accident. 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.1,50,000/- for repair charge, Rs.40,000/- for body building charge, Rs.6,000/- for tinkering charge, Rs.10,000/- for towing charge, Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation, in all a sum of Rs.3,56,000/-  along with interest at the rate of 9% 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 45 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 16/01/2017 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 OPs:

DW-1:  Sri.Guruprasad. B. Manager (Legal) of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Policy
02	Ex-A-2:-	Police Mahazar
03	Ex-A-3:-	Estimation Bill of Lakshmi Motors  for Rs.1,66,558/-
04	Ex-A-4:-	Body Building Bill for Rs.40,000/-
05	Ex-A-5:-	Towing charge bill for Rs.10,000/-
06	Ex-A-6:-	Tinkering bill for Rs.6,000/-
07	Ex-A-7:-	Office copy of the legal notice
08	Ex.A-8:-	Reply to the reply notice
09	Ex.A-9:-	Postal Receipt

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Copy of the policy
02	Ex-B-2:-	Claim Intimation
03	Ex-B-3:-	Claim Form
04	Ex-B-4:-	Adhar Card
05	Ex.B-5 to 8	Notices for inspection of the vehicle
06	Ex.B-9:-	Postal Receipt

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**