BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 34/2013.
THIS THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Durgappa. B. S/o. Bhimappa, Occ: Owner of
Auto bearing Regn.No. KA-36/A-3764, R/o. H.No.141, Hasmkal Post, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd., H.No. 46, whites road, Chennai- 600 014, Tamil Nadu, Through its Branch Manager, VIth floor, East Wing, Cenetary Building, 28th MG Road, Bangalore.
Date of institution :- 24-05-2013.
Date of disposal :- 17-10-2013
Complainant represented by Sri. Hanumanthappa, Advocate
Opposite Party represented by Sri. M. Nagaraj, Advocate.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondent U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is the owner of the Auto bearing Registration No. KA-36/A-3764 which was insured with the Respondent’s Insurance Company which was valid from 05-10-2011 to 04-10-2012. On 30-05-2012 at about 23:00 hours within the limits of Kowtal Police Station the said Auto met with an accident when the lorry hit it and it was completely damaged. The Respondent was informed about the same who instructed the complainant to get the said auto repaired at their authorized dealer Bhagyodaya Trokhos Pvt. Ltd., Hospet and deputed a surveyor to assess the damage caused to the auto. The complainant after getting the auto repaired at authorized dealer’s workshop made claim with the Respondent to reimburse the cost of damage caused to his auto which was Rs.2,18,110/-. But the Respondent repudiated the claim of the complainant without any valid grounds. Hence the complainant got issued legal notice to the Respondent which was served on him. But there was no response from the Respondent. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent’s Insurance Company. Therefore the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. The Respondent filed written version stating that the complaint has not approached this forum with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts. All the allegations made in the complaint are except those which are specifically admitted, are denied. The complainant is not entitled for compensation as he is running commercial fleet business for making profit. It is true that the complainant’s Tata Ace bearing No. No. KA-36/A-3764 was insured under goods carriage package policy which is subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein. The complainant made a belated claim on 07-06-2013 stating that on 30-05-2013 his vehicle met with an accident. Acting upon the said intimation the Respondent’s party arranged for survey of the damaged vehicle through Mr. M.Rusheeswar Reddy an IRDA licensed and he ascertained that driving licence of the driver Suresh at the time of accident was not valid and effective on the date of the accident and therefore the complainant violated the terms of the policy and Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The driver Suresh was authorized to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. Therefore his license was not effective on the date of the accident. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the Respondent rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The surveyor assessed the damage caused to the vehicle at Rs.1,44,000/-. The maximum liability of the Respondent cannot exceed the said sums. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on nine documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. On the other hand the Respondent has not adduced any evidence on their side.
5. Complainant’s written arguments is filed.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent against him?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
7. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In the affirmative.
(2) Partly in the affirmative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
8. The Respondent admitting the issuance of policy in favour of the complainant’s vehicle by his Insurance Company repudiated the claim made by the complainant to reimburse the cost of damage caused to his vehicle in the alleged accident on the ground that the complainant’s vehicle was insured under goods carriage package policy which was subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein and the driver Suresh who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident was holding driving licence to drive only the light motor vehicle and not transport vehicle and thereby the complainant had breached the driver’s clause of the conditions of the policy and therefore the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.
9. However the Respondent to prove his contention has not produced any evidence. Even after giving sufficient opportunity the Respondent has not produced any evidence. Therefore there is no evidence which proves that driver who was driving the vehicle of the complainant at the time of the alleged accident was having driving licence to drive only light motor vehicle and not commercial vehicle. Further there is also no evidence which shows that the complainant’s vehicle is a commercial vehicle and the complainant by allowing it to be driven by a person who was not holding valid driving licence to drive it committed breach of policy condition in respect of driver’s clause. Therefore the repudiation of the claim by the Respondent to reimburse the cost of the damage caused to the complainant’s vehicle amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly this point is answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. The complainant claimed an amount of Rs.2,18,110/- towards damage caused to his vehicle. He substantiated the said claim by producing estimation of repair which is marked as Ex.P-5. Therefore the complainant is entitled for this amount, however by deducting 20% towards salvage and 10% towards depreciation out of this amount which comes to Rs.1,52,600/-. The Respondent has not produced the surveyor’s report to prove his contention that as per the surveyor’s report the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant was to the extent of Rs.1,44,000/- only. Therefore the said claim of the Respondent on the basis of alleged surveyor’s report has to be rejected. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,52,600/- towards damage caused to his vehicle with interest and cost of the proceedings which shall be as per final order. Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.
POINT NO.3:-
11. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,52,600/- from Respondent’s Company.
The complainant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on total sum of Rs.1,52,600/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount.
The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from the Respondent’s Company.
Respondent is given one month time from the date of this order for making payment of the above said amounts.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on 17-10-2013)
Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
