Complaints filed on: 10-11-2022
Disposed on: 26-07-2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE DAY 26th DAY OF JULY 2023
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
CC.No.173/2022
Sri. Srinivasa R.C. S/o Late V.Sakkaraiah,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at Rayacharalu Village,
Nagalamadike Hobli,
Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District.
……….Complainant
(By Law Links Associates)
V/s
1. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company,
No.124, 2nd Main Road, 3rd Cross,
Sadashivanagara, Nelamangala,
Bengaluru Rural District.
2. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company,
No.28, 5th Floor, Southern Portion East Wing,
Centenary Building, M.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
……….Opposite Party
(OP No.1 – served/absent.)
(OP No.2 By Sri. H.K.Ramamurthy, Advocate)
:ORDER:
BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay damage amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and loss and also prays to direct the OPs to pay showroom rental amount for parking of the car and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant.
2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a owner of the vehicle car Marozo bearing registration number KA:52:A:9885 manufactured by the Mahindra company and having a fitness certificate up-to 2026. The said car having comprehensive insurance policy vide policy No.141522123400003589 and the said policy was in force to year 2021-2022. It is further contended that the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.03.2022 near Ehala Nagenahalli Village, near Chitradurga Town, Chithradurga Taluk and district and thereafter on the same day intimation was pass on to the OP’s customer relationship officer by name Anilkumar through Telephonic call vide mobile Number:9591510104, the mobile number was provided at the time of insuring the car. Subsequently, the complainant tow the vehicle to showroom/garage for repair as per the instruction of customer relation officer and the showroom has given estimation of repair of Rs.10,00,000/-. Thereafter the complainant applied for the claim of the insurance to the damaged caused to the vehicle, but the OP Company has refused to settle the claim in spite of several correspondents. Hence, the complaint.
3. After receipt of notice, the OP No.1 remained absent. The OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed the version admitting issuance of police and its validity, but contended that the liability under the policy if any is in accordance with the policy terms and conditions. The OP No.2 contended that on 16.03.2022 they have received information from the complainant regarding accident that occurred on 15.03.2022 and immediately, the OP appointed surveyor for inspection and accordingly the surveyor and loss assessor has assessed the loss and after inspection, the surveyor submitted the report. It is further contended that upon inspection and findings, it is being observed that the accident described by the complainant is not in accordance with the damages sustained to the vehicle as per accident spot and observations as follows:
- “The insured vehicle has sustained damages on multiple planes. The damage on the front plant is due to horizontal forces whereas the damage on the side planes and roof is due to non-horizontal forces.
- The insured vehicle spot photos show that the insured vehicle is rested on its left plane at the edge of the unpaved road. The damages to the insured vehicle roof, right plane and front plane do not correlate with the accident spot.
- Vehicle rolled over in the left side ditch. Hence, the damage to the right plane and front plane cannot be correlated with the spot evidence.
- In spot spillage of coolant/oil leak and damaged parts not found.
- Hiding actual facts and demanding artificial manmade damage.
It shows that the complainant has suppressed the facts and misrepresentation of the facts. The OP denied the other averments made in the complaint. On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The counsel for complainant filed evidence of complainant by way of affidavit and marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C16. One Mr.Ibrahimsab Mujawar, Legal Manager has filed his evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP-2.
5. The counsel for complainant filed his written arguments and submitted that there is no oral argument on his side. In spite of sufficient opportunities, the OP No.2 did not address his arguments. Hence, argument of OP No.2 is taken as NIL.
6. On perusal of pleadings and documents produced by the parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Whether 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.
:REASONS:
8. On perusal of pleadings, evidence and documents submitted by the parties, we listed the admitted facts between the parties are:
The complainant was a owner of the vehicle car Marozo bearing registration No.KA:52:A:9885 and the same car having comprehensive insurance policy No.141522123400003589. The said policy was in for the year 2021.2022. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 15.03.2022 near Ehala Nagenahalli Village, near Chitradurga Town. Thereafter, on the same day intimation was given to the OPs customer relationship by calling through Mobile No.9591510104. Later, the complainant tow the vehicle to showroom/garage for repair and showroom has given estimation of repair for Rs.10,00,000/-. Subsequently, the complainant submitted the claim.
9. Now the complainant’s main allegation is that in spite of several correspondences, and having valid insurance policy, the OPs have refused to settle the claim of the complainant.
10. Per-contra, the OPs have contended that on 16.03.2022 received the information from the complainant regarding accident occurred on 15.03.2022 and immediately the OPs have appointed the surveyor for inspection. After the inspection, the surveyor has assessed the loss and submitted the report. The observation made by the surveyor is as follows:-
- “The insured vehicle has sustained damages on multiple planes. The damage on the front plant is due to horizontal forces whereas the damage on the side planes and roof is due to non-horizontal forces.
- The insured vehicle spot photos show that the insured vehicle is rested on its left plane at the edge of the unpaved road. The damages to the insured vehicle roof, right plane and front plane do not correlate with the accident spot.
- Vehicle rolled over in the left side ditch. Hence, the damage to the right plane and front plane cannot be correlated with the spot evidence.
- In spot spillage of coolant/oil leak and damaged parts not found.
- Hiding actual facts and demanding artificial manmade damage.
11. We have perused the photos submitted by the complainant dated:15.03.2022 and photos produced by OPs dated:13.04.2022. As evident from the photos, the whole car has been damaged with visible dents. The damages of the insured vehicle shows that the insured vehicle not properly handled by the persons who lift the car, when it was in ditch. The dents have occurred due to persons manually lifted the car from the ditch. Therefore, the accident reconstruction report does not tally with the actual damages and dents caused to the insured vehicle. Moreover, the accident occurred on 15.03.2022 and intimated to OPs on 16.03.2022. After receiving the intimation from complainant, the OPs have appointed the surveyor and the surveyor examined the insured vehicle and place of accident after lapse of 213 days. So there is a chances of damaged vehicle’s parts are missing/misplace and tyre marks also destroyed. Except the accident reconstruction report, the OPs are not placed any cogent evidence to substantiate their contentions. Hence, considering the above facts and circumstances, it is just and proper to direct the OPs to settle claim of the complainant. The complainant submitted only repair estimation cost for Rs.10,00,000/- and not submitted any actual repair bills of insured vehicle. The OPs also not submitted any surveyor report. Under the circumstances, the OPs are directed to settle the claim of actual repair bill amount to be submitted by the complainant along with interest @ 8% PA from the date of complaint to till realization. The complainant is directed to submit actual repair bills from the authorised service center. Further, due to the act of OPs, the complainant was compelled to approach this Commission. Hence, the OPs are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Accordingly we pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
The OPs are jointly and severally directed to settle the claim of actual repair bill amount with interest @ 8% PA from the date of complaint to till realization.
The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainants.
The OPs are further jointly and severally directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties
