Complaint filed on: 04.11.2015
Complaint Disposed on:09.02.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.139/2015
DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Javeed Hussain S/o Abdul Khadeer,
Aged about 47 years, R/o Hussain
Estate, Arenoor Village, Kanathi Post,
Chikmagalur Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. Nadeesh K.B, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
The Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
P.B No.114, Cresent Court,
K.M Road, Chikmagalur.
(OP -By Sri/Smt. T.R Harish, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging a deficiency in not settling the claim of Rs.1,10,000/- towards the damages of the vehicle due to fire accident. Hence, prays for direction against Op to settle the claim of the said amount along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is a registered owner of Maruti Van bearing registration no.KA-18-M-8255 and insured with Op company under comprehensive insurance, the said vehicle also fitted with LPG kit along with petrol. The said gas kit also registered before RTO, Chikmagalur on 26.03.2010, the same was reflected in the Registration Certificate. Such being the case, on 08.05.2014 the complainant went to Hassan in his vehicle by using LPG as a fuel, after returning from Hassan the vehicle of the complainant was parked in the shed of the complainant house, at the time of parking the vehicle caught fired due to leakage of the gas fuel and immediately complainant informed the Aldur Police Station and filed a complaint, further the said fire accident was informed to the Op. After receipt of the information the Op assured to settle the claim after obtaining survey report.
The complainant repaired the vehicle by spending Rs.1,10,000/-. After repair the complainant approached the Op by submitting claim form along with original bills towards the repairs, but Op instead of settling the claim of the complainant had repudiated through their letter dated 07.10.2014, the complainant has got the comprehensive insurance policy from Op and as on date of fire accident policy is in force, hence, Op is liable to settle the claim of the complainant towards damages due to fire, non-settlement of the claim by Op amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, prays for direction against the Op to settle the claim along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that the vehicle bearing registration no.KA-18-M-8255 was covered at the material time of the accident under the policy of insurance issued by this Op vide policy no.241400/31/13/P/105197690, the said policy is valid from 18.11.2013 to 17.11.2014, the liability of this Op if any is governed by terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations of the policy.
The vehicle of the complainant was run by using petrol as a fuel, this Op had issued insurance policy and collected the premium in respect of the petrol driven vehicle only. If the vehicle is fitted with liquefied petrol gas kit (LPG) then the complainant has to pay additional premium as per GR 42 – Use of CNG/LPG fuel, but the complainant had not paid any additional premium towards risk covering the usage of LPG kit.
The complainant has fixed the LPG kit to his vehicle on 26.03.2010 and the said LPG was being used as a fuel for running the vehicle at the material time of accident. The complainant has not informed to this Op about fixing of the LPG kit to the said vehicle, this Op only came to know about usage of LPG as a fuel after the information given by complainant with respect to the fire caught to the vehicle due to leakage of the LPG fuel, the complainant has violated the policy terms and conditions by fixing the LPG kit to the vehicle and not covering the risk, hence due to non-coverage of the said risk this Op had repudiated the claim of the complainant.
After the information given by complainant this Op had appointed one Gopalakrishna, Serveyor/loss assessor to investigate the matter and after investigation the said surveyor had submitted a detailed report dated 17.05.2014 confirming damage due to gas leakage, thereafter another one Engineer/Surveyor N.S Nagendra was also appointed to quantify the damages to the vehicle and he has quantified the damages at Rs.47,725/- through his report dated 25.06.2014. Hence, at no point of time they have assured to settle the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Op in repudiating the claim of the complainant, as such they are not liable to pay claim as per the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.6. Op also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 and R.2.
5. Heard the arguments:
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op, we observed that there is no dispute that the vehicle bearing registration no.KA-18-M-8255 was insured with Op vide policy no. 241400/31/13/P/105197690 which is valid from 18.11.2013 to 17.11.2014, there is also no dispute that on 08.05.2014 the vehicle of the complainant caught fired due to leakage of the gas from gas kit which was fitted to the vehicle of the complainant, after the accident the complainant informed to the police as per Ex.P.3 and police are visited the spot, after that complainant also informed to the Op with respect to the accident, for which Op immediately appointed one Gopalakrishna to investigate the matter, accordingly the said Gopalakirshna had submitted the report, further Op also appointed one Surveyor to assess the loss as per Ex.R.2, the said surveyor assessed the loss and submitted the report, after scrutiny the Op have repudiated the claim, for the reason that complainant had not paid an additional premium towards the risk of LPG kit which was fitted to the vehicle of the complainant without their knowledge, for which complainant filed this complaint and alleges deficiency in service as Op had issued a comprehensive policy to the complainant covering the risk and also sworn in his affidavit that the agent of the Op company had not informed with respect to the additional premium to be payable for fixing the LPG kit to the vehicle and prays for direction against Op to settle the claim to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- along with compensation for deficiency in service.
It is admitted fact that on 08.05.2014 the vehicle of the complainant was caught fire due to leakage in the LPG kit fixed to the vehicle, it is also admitted fact that the policy not covered the risk of LPG kit, the complainant has not explained before this forum why he has not paid an additional premium towards fixing of the LPG kit to the vehicle, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the complainant to inform the insurance company as soon as he fixed the LPG kit as an additional fuel to the vehicle and also to pay the additional premium amount, but in this case the complainant has shown negligence in not paying an additional premium to the said risk which resulted in damages to the vehicle, we found there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Op in repudiating the claim of the complainant as because there is no coverage of the fire accident due to LPG kit, we cannot expect the Op to violate the terms and conditions of the policy, hence, Op rightly repudiated the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy and complainant failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Op. It is only due to negligence on the part of the complainant himself the vehicle was caught to fire and also shown negligence in not covering the risk, as such complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 9th day of February 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex. P1 - Photo copy of the registration certificate issued by RTO
Ex.P2 - Photo copy of the insurance policy issued by Op company
Ex.P3 - Photo copy of the complaint
Ex.P4 - Photo copy of the photograph of damaged bike.
Ex.P.5 - Four cash bills
Ex.P.6 - Repudiation letter given by Op dt:07.10.2014.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex. R.1 - Motor survey Report
Ex.R.2 - Another survey Report dt:25.06.2014.
Dated:09.02.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
