Complaint Case No. CC/841/2020 | ( Date of Filing : 20 Oct 2020 ) |
| | 1. Ramakrishna K, | S/o Late Kempegowda, Aged about 65 years, R/at No.21, Virupakshapura, 7th Cross, Ganesh Nagar, Venkatgiriyappa Garden, Kodigehalli, Bangalore 560097. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
Versus | 1. The Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co Ltd., | Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Opp to Kanteerava Stadium, Off Richmond Road, Bangalore 560027. | 2. The Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co Ltd., | Door No.620, A 1, 12th Main, 35th Cross, 2nd Block, Opp to Hanuman Temple, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore 560010. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
Final Order / Judgement | Date of Filing:20.10.2020 Date of Disposal:18.04.2023 BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU 1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. PRESENT:- Hon’bleSri.Ramachandra M.S., B.A., LL.B., President Sri.Chandrashekar S Noola., B.A., Member Smt.Nandini H Kumbhar, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., Member | ORDER C.C.No.841/2020 Order dated this the 18th day of April 2023 | Sri Ramakrishan.K. S/o Late Kempegowda, Aged about 65 years, R/a No.21, Virupakshpura, 7th cross, Ganesh nagar, Venkatagiriyappa garden, Kodigehalli, Bengaluru-560097 (Sri N.Shivaram, Adv. ,) | COMPLAINANT/S | - V/S – | - The Manager,
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Raja Ram Mohan Roy road, Opp. Kanteerava Stadium, Opp. Richmond road, Bengaluru-560027 (Smt.Manasa Jayaram,Adv.,) - The Manager,
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Door No.620, A-1, 12th Main, -
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560010 (Smt.Manasa Jayaram,Adv.,) | OPPOSITE PARTY/S |
ORDER SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.S.NOOLA, MEMBER - The complainant filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, requesting that the Opposite party (hereinafter called “OP”) pay Rs.1,56,575/- for car damage and repair, plus 18% interest. To instruct the respondent pay compensation sum of Rs.10,000/- for the complainant's delay, inconvenience, and mental suffering. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.
- The following are the complaint's key facts:
The complainant purchased a private car package policy from 20.09.2019 to 19.09.2020 by paying a package policy premium of Rs.6,148.98p. On October 1, 2019, the car was involved in an accident-causing damage. After alerting the OP about the accident, the insurance company's assessor visited and evaluated the car, and it was agreed that the damages and repair charges would be sanctioned. Following that, the OP sent a letter noting that "we observe from the claim paper that there is a claim reported under previous policy, but NCB (no claim bonus) availed in the current policy and regretted for inability to entertain the claim". Furthermore, the OP Insurance Company also directed the complainant to pay an additional premium of Rs.1,918/- towards no claim discount, and the complainant's claim will be acknowledged only after payment of this sum. The complainant had paid the stated amount in the hope of receiving compensation, and the company merely dismissed the claim as false and baseless. - The opposite party denied the complainant's allegations and stated that it was clearly stated in the repudiation letter to the complainant that the repudiation is for the reason that there has been misrepresentation of facts with relation to the vehicle claim under the previous insurance. The complainant was requested to refund the NCB amount used in the present policy so that the opposite party might correct the policy for the balance of the policy period of time.
- The points that arise for our consideration are;
- Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
- What order?
- The findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order REASONS - POINT NO.1:- On perusal of the documents this commission has observed that as per the complaint the complainant’s car was damaged in a accident and after reporting the incident to OP the company surveyor visited and assessed the damages. When the claim was sent to the OP it was repudiated on the ground that the complainant had concealed the information of claimed insurance before issuance of the current insurance policy. The same has been produced by the OP in doc. no-6 issued by Insurance Information Bureau of India. In this case it is evident that the insured concealed the facts of the previous claim in order to obtain a new policy and benefit from a no claim bonus. The insurance company i.e. OPs No.1 and 2, therefore, was required to settle the claim of the complainant, on Non-Standard basis, by not doing so, it has committed deficiency in rendering services. The surveyor vide report dated 12.11.2019 has assessed the net amount of Rs.1,07,535/-. The report of the surveyor is based on cogent and convincing material and data. No evidence was produced, on the record, to rebut the report of the surveyor. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deen Dayal II (2009) CPJ, 45 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the surveyors report being important document cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to contrary on The complainant, is thus, held entitled for a sum of Rs.64,521/- i.e. 60% of Rs.1,07,535/- on record on non-standard basis. The complainant has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for loss suffered by him. It may be stated here that by claiming no claim bonus wrongly, the complainant had committed mistake, thus, he is not entitled to get compensation as sought for. The above said amount of Rs.64,521/- shall be paid by the OP No.1 and 2 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. Accordingly, the Point No.1 we answer Partly in affirmative.
- POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:
ORDER - The complaint filed by the Complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is allowed in part.
- The OP-1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.64,521/- to the complainant. The OP-1 &2 further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges.
- The OP-1 & 2 are further directed to pay the above said amount to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.
- Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 18th April 2023) (RAMACHANDRA M.S.) PRESIDENT (NANDINI H KUMBHAR) (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA) MEMBER MEMBER Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit: Sri Ramakrishna.K.-who being the complainant Documents produced by the complainant: 1 | A1:Copy of Registration Certificate | 2 | A2: Copy of Insurance policy | 3 | A3: Copy of letter issued by Insurance company | 4 | A4: Copy of payment made to Mahanth motors |
Witness examined on behalf of the OP-1 by way of affidavit: Sri B.Suneel Kumar-Who being the OP-1 Documents produced by the OP-1: 1 | Doc-1: Authorization letter | 2 | Doc-2: Copy of Insurance policy | 3 | Doc-3: Copy of claim form | 4 | Doc-4: Copy of Vehcile RC book | 5 | Doc-5: Copy of Driver license | 6 | Doc-6: Copy of Insurance Information Bureau report | 7 | Doc-7: Copy of FIR dt.01.10.2019 | 8 | Doc-8: Copy of complaint copy | 9 | Doc-9: Copy of survey report | 10 | Doc-10:Copy of repudiation letter dt.15.11.2019 | 11 | Doc-11: Copy of bills | 12 | Doc-12: Photos |
(RAMACHANDRA M.S.) PRESIDENT (NANDINI H KUMBHAR) (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA) MEMBER MEMBER SKA* | |