-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

                                                               C.C. No.90/2017.

                                                            Date of filing: 14.12.2017.

                                                                   Date of disposal: 17.12.2018.

P R E S E N T:-    

                              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,                                                                                                                                                                                                                  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                President

                             (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

COMPLAINANT/S:    1.   Md.Mastan Ali S/o Osman Ali,                                                       
                                            Age:40 years,  Occ: Business,

                                            R/o H.No.142 Murad Nagar Hallikhed-B

                                             Tq. Humnabad Dist. Bidar.                                                                                        

                                         ( By Smt.Padma Maharaj.,Adv.)                                         

                                                                 VERSUS

OPPONENT/S:        1)         The Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance                  
                                             Company Ltd. Division Office,

                                             E8 RIICO  Industerial Area,

                                             Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan  303022.

                                    2).       Business Development Manager,

                                             Shree Ram General Insurance Company Limited, 
                                             1^st floor, 8-1-135(A) Shri Veerabhadreshwar
                                             Chambers opp. Sai School Near Nehru Stadium
                                              Udgir, Road Bidar- 585401.                                           

                                      (By. Sri.V.M.Prakash., Adv.)

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

The instant complaint is against an Insurer, the opponent u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service owing to non settlement of Insurance claim.  The subject matter of the complaint is as follows:-

2.           The complainant alleges that, he was registered owner of Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-32 B3689 which was under insurance Cover vide Policy No.10012/31/16/019071 issued  by the opponents.  The validity of the Policy was from 20.10.2015 to 19.10.2016.  Even if the complainant is not explicit, from the documents filed by him as Annexure-C, it is seen that, the policy was duly transferred to him from the previous owner after paying due premium.

3.          Be it so, on 16.12.2015, the Lorry loaded with fodder, (Maize stem) was proceeding from village Malchapur towards Gulbarga.  At about 1.30p.m. on that day while passing Rudnoor Thanda, there were two 63 Transformers were there on the roadside and the electrical transmission wires were low hanging at the middle of the road.  The fodders so loaded touched the low hanging wires for which, electrical sparks were generated and fire broke out on the fodders.  Two villagers by name Jaishingh S/o Banu Rathod and Pandurang S/o Ramlu Rathod saw the flames and signaled the driver.  The driver stopped the Lorry and along with him the villagers tried to douse the fire in vain and entire fodder on the lorry were consigned to flames.  The Lorry also was burnt completely.  A complaint was filed in jurisdictional Dhanura Police Station and F.A.No.12/2015 was registered and investigation was taken up by the Police.  The complainant further states  that, by plying the Lorry, he was earning about Rs.30,000/- p.m. and he had lost his livelihood.  He has purchased the Lorry against a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and he is legally entitled to be compensated.

 4.        The complainant had lodged the claim before the O.P.s with all relevant documents but the Insurer has refused to entertain the claim for which he has preferred the present complaint.

5.         The opponents upon receipt of notice were represented by counsel and have filed written versions.  In the versions, the fact of insurance cover is denied.  The contentions of the complaint at the inception is denied but at later portion of the versions, it is being claimed that, the policy was issued for covering the risk of own damages and vehicle theft and burning of the vehicle is different than theft.  It is further avered that, as per the report of the Insurer’s Investigator, surveyor and independent enquiry it has been ascertained that, the vehicle was being used in violation of limitations as to use prescribed in the policy.  It is further claimed that, at the time of accident fodders were loaded above a height of 20 feet, whereas the legal mandate is that, the height of loaded vehicle from the road surface should not exceed 4.20M, thereby the limitations to use was defiled.  It is further stated that, though I.R.D.A. approved Surveyor was appointed, documents were not provided to him by the complainant, there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle and on these grounds.  The opponents seek dismissal of the case.

6.         Both sides have submitted documents listed at the end of this order and filed evidence affidavits.  Both sides were heard in length.

7.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties at dispute the following points arise for our consideration.

1. Does the complainant prove deficiency of service?
2. Were the opponents justified in refuting the insurance claim?
3. What orders?

8.         Our answers to the points are as detailed underneath.

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the negative.
3. As per the final orders owing to following:-

                                       :: REASONS ::

9.         Point.No.1 & 2: Are inter webbed together and are to be considered together.  The complainant in as effort to establish his claim has submitted documents like the F.I.R., Panchanama of the jurisdictional Police, Endorsements and the policy, Permit of the vehicle, and some other allied documents.  From the documents copy(s) of which have been issued by Police authorities, it is crystal clear that, indeed, by the fire accident caused to the Lorry in caption, the loaded fodder and the Lorry itself was completely burnt.  The opponents singing different tunes have ultimately taken shelter of violation of policy condition.  According to the opponents, at the time of accident the vehicle was loaded with fodders beyond a height of 20 feet in violation of prescribed height of 4.20mtrs from the road surface.  In support of this claim, excepting an averment in the versions and affidavit, no evidence worth the name was ever led by the opponents.  It is at one point of time mentioned that, a surveyor was engaged but the complainant did not provide F.I.R. and other documents.  There is but no answer as to why the documents provided with the claim/demand could not be copied and provided to its’ own surveyor.  No such information is forthcoming from the police documents and hence the claim of the opponents appear to be hollow perse.

10.       People obtain insurance policies paying through their noses to protect their interest(s) property(s) from unforeseen dangers and perils.  In the instant case, the policy issued was to cover own damages and theft.  The vehicle has been burnt to the core and the Insurer is bound to settle the claim of the insured.

11.       Apart from this, in a far fetching case law reported in III(2007) CPJ III (S.C.)- United India Insurance Company Ltd.  v/s Great Eastern shipping Company Ltd. , the Apex Court has obited that, “where two views are possible, the one which favours the consumer should be accepted”.  Keeping this dicta in view, we rule point No.1 and 2 accordingly.

12.       Point No.3:   Though the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- and insurance surveyor has assessed the damages at Rs.5,29,300/-,  we see from the Insurance policy forming part of Annexure-C that, the I.D.V. of the vehicle has been declared as Rs.4,96,000/- and complainant would be entitled for claim settlement up to that extent only and thereby we pass the following:-

ORDER.

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,96,000/- together with interest A 12% p.a. from date of lodging the claim till realisation;
3. A further sum of Rs.5,000/- is payable by the opponents towards litigation expenses;
4. The opponents would be at liberty to take away the salvage after satisfying the award;
5. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 17^th day of December 2018).

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                         

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Annexure.A- Copy of F.I.R. in F.A.No.12/2015 of Dhanura Police 
                            Station.
2. Annexure.B– Copy of Panchanama in the above case.
3. Annexure.C- Copy of Transfer endorsement of policy and the policy
                            of Insurance No.10012/31/16/019071.
4. Annexure.D– Copy of registration certificate of vehicle No.KA 
                             32B3689.
5. Annexure.E-  Copy of Goods Carriage permit.
6. Annexure.F- Copy of Driving licence.
7. Annexure-G- Copy of ration card and AADHAR Card.
8. Annexures.H&J(I-excluded)-Statements of witnesses in F.A. 12/15.
9. Annexure.K- Copy of Repudiation letter.
10. Annexures-L to P(O-excluded)- Photos of burnt vehicle.

 Document produced by the Opponents.

1. Annexure.R.1- Copy of Survey report.

Witness examined.

Complainant.

1. P.W.1- Mohmmed Mastan Ali S/o Mohmmed Osman Ali.
                   (Complainant).

Opponent.

1. R.W.1- Sri Peeyush Jain, Legal Officer of opponent.

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.