Complaint filed on:17-08-2023
Disposed on:30-03-2024
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS 30th THE DAY OF MARCH 2024
//PRESENT//
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER
Consumer Complaint. No.114 /2023
Sri. Manjunatha H
S/o Hanumantharayappa
R/at I B back side,
Guttahalli, Pavagada Town and Taluk,
Tumakuru District.
(owner cum driver of Toyota Etios car
Bearing registration No.KA-06-AA-4749)
(Policy No.140122223380017358)
……….Complainant
(By Sri. G.Virupaksha. Advocate)
V/s
The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company
UNNATI ARCADE, 5/111 & 6/112,
1st Floor, 1st block, Dr.Rajkumar Road,
(1st Main Road), Rajajinagar,
Bangalore – 560 010.
…….Opposite Party/s
(By Sri.H.K.Ramamurthy, Advocate)
//:ORDER://
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI - PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against the OP and prays to direct the OP to pay the prescribed total damage claim compensation amount of Rs.4,30,000/- with interest as per the policy from the date of accident to till realization and further prays to direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000-00 as mental agony and litigation cost.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:-
The complainant is the owner cum driver of Toyota Etios car bearing Registration No.KA-06-AA-4749 and the OP has issued insurance policy bearing No.140122223380017358 to the said vehicle and the policy was valid from 18/11/2022 to mid night 17/11/2023. The complainant submitted that the said car met with an accident on 16.05.2023 in NH-44 Hyderabad-Bangalore road at Koduru Thopu, chilamathur Mandal due to burst of the tyre and thereby the complainant lost control over his vehicle and dashed to left side of the support iron railing and rolled over twice and gone into the right side of the road of NH44 Bangalore – Hyderabad road, due to which, front bonnet, bumper, front glass, left and right side doors, back side dickey, left mud gad, front side of the car totally damaged, but none were injured in the said accident. It is further submitted that the complainant immediately lodged a written complaint before the jurisdictional police i.e. Chilmathur police station, Ananthapura District on the same day at 4.30 AM and the police have visited the spot and found the Toyota Etios car bearing registration No.KA-06-AA-4749 was parked road side and front portion and other parts of the car got damaged. Thereafter the complainant informed the incident to Manohar who is agent of the OP and the complainant was given claim No.3123123649 and thereafter the OP appointed the surveyor to conduct the survey of the accident damaged vehicle and after survey, the surveyor submitted the report to the OP.
The complainant further submitted that the OP has issued repudiation letter to the complainant on 07.07.2023 which served on the complainant on 15.07.2023 by repudiating the claim stating that the complainant/owner cum driver is not eligible to damage. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP on 17.07.2023, but the OP has not considered the damage claim. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the OP appeared and filed the version admitting the issuance and validity of the policy as on the date of loss and liability of OP if any is in accordance with the policy terms and condition. The OP submitted that on 22.05.2023 having received the information from the complainant regarding accident that occurred on 16.02.2023, the OP immediately appointed the surveyor for inspection and accordingly the surveyor and loss assessor has assessed the loss after inspection of the vehicle and also submitted his report to the company. The OP further contended that upon inspection and findings, it is being observed that accident described by the complainant is not in accordance with damages sustained to the vehicle as per accident spot and observations as follows:
The insured vehicle sustained damages on multiple damages at front LHS portion due which front LHS portion of IV got major damage, LHS fender and LHS front door got crushed, LHS A-pillar, LHS headlight LHS headlight, LHS ORVM and LHS portion of roof top damaged, LHS portion of bonnet, front bumper and also rear portion of IV got damaged, seeking such extensive damage to IV, it is opined that the person driving could not have escaped severe injury while tumbling inside the IV. He would have sustained severe injuries to his both limbs and other parts of the body, this is concluded that Mr.Manjunath H was not seated in the driver seat and was not the driving the subject vehicle at the time of accident and also damages to the vehicle claimed against the above mentioned accident are not matching with the cause of nature of loss mentioned in the claim form, and also the complainant has not intimated the occurrence within stipulated time.
It is further submitted that the OP unable to process the claim due to breach of condition No.1 and condition No.8 of the motor insurance policy and therefore they repudiated the claim of the complainant as per the policy terms and conditions. The OP further contended that if the Commission fixes liability on the OP, then the OP shall be limited to Rs.1,92,877/- only as per the survey report.
The OP further submitted that there is a suppression of facts and misrepresentation of facts by the complainant and moreover there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13. One Mr.Vijaykumar has filed his evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP.
5. We have heard the arguments of complainant. The counsel for OP submits that the arguments of OP may be taken as heard.
6. The points that would arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?
7. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order
//:R E A S O N S://
Point Nos.(1) & (2):-
8. On perusal of the pleadings, evidence and documents submitted by the parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner cum driver of Toyota Etios car bearing Registration No.KA-06-AA-4749 and the OP has issued insurance policy bearing No.140122223380017358 to the said vehicle. The policy was valid from 18/11/2022 to mid night 17/11/2023. The said car met with an accident on 16.05.2023 in NH-44 Hyderabad-Bangalore road at Koduru Thopu, Chilamathur Mandal due to burst of the tyre and thereby the complainant lost control over his vehicle and dashed to left side of the support iron railing and rolled over twice and gone into the right side of the road of NH44 Bangalore – Hyderabad road the complainant immediately lodged a written complaint before the jurisdictional police i.e. Chilmathur police station, Ananthapura District on the same day at 4.30 AM and the police have visited the spot and found the Toyota Etios car bearing registration No.KA-06-AA-4749 was parked road side margin, front portion and other parts of the car got damaged. Thereafter the complainant informed the incident to Manohar who is agent of the OP and the complainant was given claim No.3123123649 and thereafter the OP appointed the surveyor. Thereafter the OP issued repudiation letter to the complainant on 07.07.2023. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP on 17.07.2023, but the OP has not considered the damage claim.
9. The OP admitted the issuance and validity of the policy as on the date of loss and liability of OP if any in accordance with policy terms and conditions. Further, the OP contended that on 22.05.2023 after receiving the information from the complainant regarding accident that occurred on 16.02.2023, the OP appointed the surveyor for inspection. The surveyor and loss assessor has assessed the loss after inspection of the vehicle at the tune of Rs.1,92,877-00 and submitted the report to the company. After the inspection, it is being observed that the accident described by the complainant is not in accordance with damage sustained to the vehicle as per the accident and observations as follows:-
The insured vehicle sustained damages on multiple damages at front LHS portion due which front LHS portion of IV got major damage, LHS fender and LHS front door got crushed, LHS A-pillar, LHS headlight LHS headlight, LHS ORVM and LHS portion of roof top damaged, LHS portion of bonnet, front bumper and also rear portion of IV got damaged, seeking such extensive damage to IV, it is opined that the person driving could not have escaped severe injury while tumbling inside the IV. He would have sustained severe injuries to his both limbs and other parts of the body, this is concluded that Mr.Manjunath H was not seated in the driver seat and was not the driving the subject vehicle at the time of accident and also damages to the vehicle claimed against the above mentioned accident are not matching with the cause of nature of loss mentioned in the claim form, and also the complainant has not intimated the occurrence within stipulated time.
From the basis of the above observations, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant. Further, in Para No.10 of the version, the OP submitted that if the Commission fixes liability on the OP, then the OP shall be limited to Rs.1,92,877-00 only as per the survey report.
10. On perusal of exhibits of both parties, it is seen that after lapse of 6 days, the complainant intimated about the accident to the OP insurance company. Later, the OP appointed the surveyor, the survey and inspection carried out by an independent surveyor after lapse of more than a week. Hence, it is very difficult to find out the exact reasons for the damages to the vehicle occurred at the time of accident. As per Ex.P10 the pictures drawn reveals the fact that, the air bags in the vehicle are opened. When the air bags are opened on the driver side, we cannot expect major injuries. In this regard, the OP not examined any expert or any surveyor, only the OP suspected that at the time of accident, the driver Manjunath was not seating in the driver seat and was not driving the vehicle in question. Moreover, the OP not filed any survey report before this Commission. Hence, OP is failed to establish their defence. Hence, OP is liable to pay Rs.1,92,877-00 with interest as per loss assessment by the surveyor and as admitted by the OP in the version.
11. For the acts of OP, the complainant is compelled to approach this Commission. Hence, OP is liable to pay Rs.10,000-00 as compensation and Rs.10,000-00 as litigation expenses to the complainant. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.1,92,877-00 with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of repudiation to till realization.
The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000-00 as compensation and Rs.10,000-00 as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Further, the OP is directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.
Supply copy of this order to both parties with free of costs immediately.
