Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/70/2014

H.N.Ramachandrappa S/o. Nagappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Universal Sampo General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shri. M.Govinda Reddy

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

   COMPLAINT FILED ON :01/09/2014

              DISPOSED ON:19/10/2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 70/2014 DATED: 19th OCTOBER 2015

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY,               MEMBER

                                         B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

        SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI,       

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   MEMBER

COMPLAINANT

H.N. Ramachandrappa, S/o Nagappa, Advocate, R/o Mahalakshmi Krupa, 6th Main, 5th Cross, IUDP Layout, Chitradurga.   Sri. (Rep by Sri. N. Thippeswamy,  Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

The Manager, Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, KVB Towers, 2nd Floor, 7/3, Old Madras road, Opp: 100 ft road, Indira Nagara, B'lore-38.   Discrepancy Team, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot No.E.L.94 T.T.C. Industrial Area M.I.D.C. Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710   The Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank, P.B. Road, Reddy Building     Sri. (Rep by Sri. K. Mohan Butta,  Advocate for OPs 1 & 2 and Sri. L. Madhusudhana for OP 3)

 

SMT.G.E. SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI, MEMBER.

ORDER

 

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite parties (here in called OPs) to direct the OPs to grant compensation of Rs.2,33,286/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a and to grant court cost and to grant such other reliefs.

 

 2.    Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant H.N. Ramachandrappa S/o Nagappa is working as Advocate at Chitradurga Bar Association, since 22 years, he purchased the car belongs to Indigo Manza Company, bearing Car No.KA-16/M 7385 for his personal use, this is white board car, since the date of purchase the complainant is the registered owner of the said car, bearing chassis No.MAT613040CLB404645 Engine No.101A240217497 model 2012, colour white, value of Rs.9,10,000/- same was insured with the OP, the policy was in force as on the date of incident.  The OP, collected up to date premium to cover the risk of the policy, issued the policy Manual cover note bearing No.USGIA/2014092738 and it is valid from 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2015.  And the other vehicle documents such as RC FC, DL, permit etc, are in order. 

3.     That on 14.05.2014 at about 2-00 P.M the complainant standing his car bearing No.KA-16/M 7385 in the District Court campus, under the big tree, and going to conducting his cases in the District Court, when the said complainant after completion of conducting his cases, going to his house, came near his car at about 4-10 P.M and surprised that, the branches of big tree fallen on the top of the car belongs to the complainant, as a result, the top of the car completely damaged, and two back doors completely damaged, and back side glass broken, bayonet, front mudguard, back side car dikki completely damaged, and other damages caused to his car, thereby the complainant suffered lot, put into great mental shock, agony and pain.

4.     The complainant lodged the complaint to the Town Police, Chitradurga, the said police after investigation, conducted the spot mahazar and seizer mahazar, and submitted the report dated 14.05.2014 and Hon'ble Court has also issued the specific report, that the complainant car was damaged due to fallen down the branch of the tree on the top of the car.

5.     As per the instructions and directions of the OP authorized company the complainant has shifted his car to VIN AUTO show room at BVK layout, Chitradurga, the OP company surveyor visited to the VIN AUTO show room and conducted the vehicle survey, and assessed the damages, and the same is reduced in writing and taken the photos of the damaged car, and the said authorized company surveyor has issued the claim number to the complainant, bearing No.CL14008125 on the same day, after 20 days, the said VIN AUTO show room, Chitradurga have not repaired the said car, replaced the damaged portion of the said car, and the same is brought to the notice to the above said company surveyor, and as per the instructions of the company surveyor the said car was shifted to private car garaze, Davanagere for repairs, the complainant has not interested to repairs and replaced the damaged portion in the private car garaze at Davanagere. 

6.     It is further stated that, the complainant back his car, to Durga Car Service Pvt. Ltd., TATA-Authorized Service Center, Passenger car No.46,47,48 KIADD Industrial Estate, Kelagote, Chitradurga for making repairs, and replacement of the damaged portion, and fixed the new materials, once again the company surveyor visited to the above said Durga Car Service Pvt. Ltd., Chitradurga and conducted the survey and taken the photos of the replaced damaged portion of the said car, as per the directions, of the company surveyor, the complainant repaired his car, and replaced the damage portion of the said car, for that, the complainant had spent Rs.1,33,286/- towards damages, and released his car from the said Durga car Service Pvt. Ltd., Chitradurga, after payment on 04.08.2014 for that the said Durga car Service Pvt. Ltd., Chitradurga had issued the Estimate, Tax Invoice, bills separately. 

7.     It is further stated that, the complainant had handed over all the vehicular documents, estimate, tax invoice, bills and other necessary documents to the company with respect to the car belongs to the complainant on 05.08.2014, the same is within the knowledge of OP.

8.     The complainant has demanded and requested the OP through mobile phone to settle the claim but the OP neglected to comply the request, the OP has deliberately fails to discharge his service than the desired service. 

9.     The cause of action for this complaint, aroses on 14.05.2014 within the jurisdiction of this Forum and complainant prayed for allow the complaint with cost. 

10.   On service of process OP appeared through his counsel and filed his version.  While admitting the averments in para 1 and 4, OPs further stated that after receiving the claim form, they have appointed surveyor-Sheikh Mohammad and the said surveyor submitted final report on.  As per the report the car sustained loss for Rs.89,715/-.  As per the report OPs have deposited the said amount to complainant saving account in Karnataka Bank, Chitradurga.  But the complainant filed this claim petition on 01.09.2014.  After receiving cheque the complainant filed this false complaint.

11.   OPs further stated that the Hon'ble District Consumer Forum comes to the conclusion that OP is liable to pay compensation to the complainant, this Insurance Co., OPs have liable to pay only final report given by the surveyor to this Insurance Co., and not the amount claimed by the complainant in the complaint, and the same is already paid to the complainant.

 

12.   It is further stated that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  The petition is barred by limitation. 

 

13.   Without prejudice to the above contentions this OP/Insurance Company, seeks the permission of this  Hon'ble Court to file additional objections if new facts are known.

14. Complainant himself examined as Pw-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed documents, the same were got marked as Ex A-1 to A-13.

 

        15. On behalf of OPs one Shri. Piyush Shankar S/o R.K. Sharma, Senior Legal Manager, examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and filed one document and the same was got marked as Ex.B-1.   

 

        16. Complainant and OPs filed their respective written arguments and oral arguments also heard.

 

18.   Now the Points arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

 

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that he has obtained policy from OPs insurance company to his car bearing No. KA-16/M 7385 and it was valid from 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2015 and his vehicle was damaged due to the fallen of the tree in the District Court campus on 14.05.2015 at about 4-00 P.M?

 

Point No.2:- Whether the complainant proves that, he spent Rs.1,33,286/- towards repair of his car and he has furnished all the documents to OPs insurance company for settlement of the claim and the OPs insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant in full and OPs have committed deficiency of service and the complainant entitled for the relief as sought for in the complaint?

 

Point No.3:-  What order?

       

19. Our findings on the above points are as below.

 

        Point No.1:- Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

 

                                ::REASONS::

       20. Point Nos. 1 & 2:-  We like to discuss the Point No.1 & 2 simultaneously for the sake of convenience.  It is not in dispute that the complainant has obtained the policy from the OPs to his car bearing No.KA-16 M 7385 by paying premium amount and the policy was valid from 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2015.  It is not in dispute that the complainant's vehicle was damaged due to the fallen of tree on the top of the car in the premises of District Court, Chitradurga on 14.05.2014 at about 4-00 P.M. It is not in dispute that, complainant has repaired his car by spending an amount of Rs.1,33,286/-.  It is only in dispute that, OPs insurance company have committed deficiency in service towards the complainant in settling the claim amount in full. 

 

21.  To prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself examined as PW 1 by filing affidavit evidence in which reiterated the contents of the complaint and filed 13 documents, the same was got marked as Ex.A-1 to A-13.  Ex.A-1 is the true copy of  complaint.  Ex.A-2 is spot mahazar.  Ex.A-3 is the seizure mahazar.  Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of the report issued by the C.A.O, District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.  Ex.A-5 is the premium paid receipt.  Ex.A-6 is the postal receipt and acknowledge.  Ex.A-7 is the L Petition No.460/14 dated 14.05.2014 issued by the P.S.I, Town Police, Chitradurga. Ex.A-8 is the 4 colour photos of the damaged car.  Ex.A-9 is the 8 original receipts issued by the Durga Car Service Pvt. Ltd., Chitradurga.  Ex.A-10 is the Tax Invoice issued by the Durga Car Service Pvt. Ltd.  Ex.A-11 is the certified copy of the estimate issued by the Durga Car Service Pvt. Ltd.  Ex.A-12 is the original policy issued by the OP 2 to the complainant to his vehicle.  Ex.A-13 is the Job Card Estimate issued by the VIN AUTO, Chitradurga. 

 

22.  On verifying the above document i.e., Ex.A-12, it is clearly shows that, the complainant obtained policy to his vehicle bearing No.KA-16 M 7385 for the period from 16.05.2014 to mid night of 15.05.2015 and it shows the value of the vehicle is Rs.6,28,800/- and it shows he has paid total premium of Rs.13,134/-, it is not in dispute.  Ex.A-13 the estimate issued by the VIN AUTO, Chitradurga dated 16.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.1,54,123/- towards the damages caused to the vehicle of the complainant.  Ex.A-11 the estimate issued by the Durga Car Service Pvt. Ltd., Chitradurga dated 29.05.2013 shows Rs.1,51,929/- towards the damages to the vehicle of the complainant.  On perusal of the Ex.A-1 to A-8 clearly shows that, the vehicle of the complainant damaged due to fallen of tree on the top of his car in the premises of District Court, Chitradurga on 14.05.2015.  Ex.A-9 receipts shows complainant paid the amount to the Durga Car Services Pvt. Ltd., towards the repairs of his car and Ex.A-10 the tax invoice clearly shows that, the complainant paid Rs.1,33,286/- to the Durga Car Services Pvt. Ltd., Chitradurga towards repair of his car.  On verifying Ex.A-9 and A-10 it is clearly shows that, complainant spent Rs.1,33,286/- towards repair of his car.  Ex.A-12 policy shows that, the value of the vehicle was Rs.6,28,800/-.  Complainant paid the premium of Rs.13,134/- and it further shows that, the vehicle of the complainant damaged in the incident on 14.05.2015 and the policy was covered for the period from 16.05.2014 to mid night of 15.05.2015.  As per Ex.A-12 the policy was in force at the time of incident.  Complainant Advocate argued that, complainant has spent Rs.1,33,286/- for the repair of the car and complainant has furnished all the documents to the OPs insurance company but, they have not settled the claim of the complainant within time.  Due to the non settlement of the claim, complainant suffered financially and mentally.  Further complainant advocate argued that, complainant is a practicing advocate and he used the rented vehicle and spent Rs.45,000/- and further he spent Rs.6,000/- towards toeing of the damaged car from Chitradurga to Davanagere and Davanagere to Chitradurga.  Due to the act of the OPs, complainant suffered mentally and financially.  For non settlement of the claim of the complainant, OPs have committed deficiency in service, therefore, prayed for allow the complaint with cost and relied on the decision reported in III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) wherein it has been held as under:

III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC)

Supreme Court of India

Dharmendra Goel

vs.

Orient Insurance Co.Ltd.,

(i)   Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(c) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 146, 196 – Insurance – Motor Accident claim – Depreciation – Value of vehicle on date of insurance accepted at Rs.3,54,000/- Accident took place within seven months of insurance – Value depreciated from Rs.3,54,000 to Rs.1,80,000 – Complaint dismissed by District Forum – Allowed in appeal – Inadequate compensation, on cash loss basis awarded by State Commission - Revision against order partly allowed – Insurer directed to pay loss assessed by Surveyor on cash loss basis – Civil appeal filed – Insurer often acts unreasonably, after having accepted value of particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or other – Attitude bad in law, ethically indefensible – Company bound by value put on vehicle while renewing policy – Vehicle used for seven months – Value reduced by Rs.10,000/- - Insurer liable to pay Rs.3,44,000 with interest.     

 

23.  The above said decision is applicable to the complainant case and complainant advocate filed a memo stating that, OP 3 Bank made as a formal party to this complaint and filed a memo on 15.07.2015 stating that complaint against OP No. 1 dismissed.  Hence, the complaint against OP 1 and 3 is dismissed. 

 

24.  On the other hand, advocate for OP No.2 Sri. K. Mohan Butta argued that, OPs have deposited a sum of Rs.89,715/- to the complainant's savings account in Karnataka Bank, Chitradurga.  Complainant filed this complaint on 01.09.2014 after receiving the above said amount.  OPs Advocate further argued that, after receiving the claim form, OPs have appointed surveyor and the said surveyor submitted final survey report as per the report the car sustained loss for Rs.89,715/-.  OPs are liable to pay only final report given by the surveyor to this insurance company and not the amount claimed by the complainant in the complaint and the same is already paid to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service.  Ex.B-1 the survey report shows the loss assessed by the surveyor for a sum of Rs.89,715/- and OP Advocate further argued that complainant has not produced any documents to show that the complainant used rental vehicle for three months and spend Rs.45,000/- and spend Rs.6,000/- towards toeing charges to the Chitradurga to Davanagere, Davanagere to Chitradurga.  Complainant is not entitled the above said amounts prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

25.  On perusal of the entire case records and documents and affidavit evidence, Ex.A-9 and A-10 clearly shows that, complainant spent Rs.1,33,286/-towards repair of his car.  On perusal of Ex.B-1 survey report at page 3, it is mentioned that, the total bill amount was for Rs.1,33,286/-, insurance company's liability was Rs.89,715/- and insured's liability was Rs.43,570/-. When the OP insurance company collected the entire premium amount from the insured towards the value of the vehicle for a sum of Rs.6,28,800/- and such being the case, the question of investment made by the insured does not arise.  So, the OPs are liable to pay the amount towards repair charges i.e., 1,33,286/- but, the OPs was already paid a sum of Rs.89,715/- and the remaining amount is only Rs.43,570/-, that amount has to be paid by the OPs insurance company to the complainant.  Complainant has not produced any documents to show that he spent Rs.45,000/- towards using the rental vehicle and spent Rs.6,000/- towards toeing charges to his car from Chitradurga to Davanagere and Davanagere to Chitradurga.  So, the contention of the complainant is not believable.  Complainant is not entitled the above said amounts.  Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 held as affirmative & Point No.2 held as partly affirmative. 

 

 26.  Point No.3:- As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

        The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is further ordered that, OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.43,570/- to the complainant towards remaining repair charges with interest at 12% p.a from the date of filing this complaint till payment within two months from the date of this order.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of this complaint to the complainant. 

Complaint against OP 1 and 3 is dismissed. 

Accordingly, complaint is partly allowed. 

 

(This order is made with the consent of President and Member after the correction of the draft on 19/10/2015 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)   

 

MEMBER                 MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

 

ANNEXURES:

Complainant by filing  affidavit evidence taken as PW-1.

Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

                                                -Nil-

On behalf of OPs one Shri. Piyush Shankar, Senior Legal Manager, examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit

evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	True copy of  complaint.
02	Ex-A-2:-	Copy of Spot mahazar.
03	Ex-A-3:-	Copy of seizure mahazar.
04	Ex-A-4:-	Certified copy of the report issued by the C.A.O, District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.
05	Ex-A-5:-	Copy of premium paid receipt.
06	Ex-A-6:-	Copy of preceipt and acknowledge.
07	Ex-A-7:-	Copy of L Petition No.460/14 dated 14.05.2014 issued by the P.S.I, Town Police, Chitradurga.
08	Ex-A-8:-	4 colour photos of the damaged car.
09	Ex.A-9:-	8 original receipts issued by the Durga Car Service Pvt. Ltd., Chitradurga.
10	Ex.A-10:-	Copy of Tax Invoice issued by the Durga Car Service Pvt. Ltd.
11	Ex.A-11:-	Certified copy of the estimate issued by the Durga Car Service Pvt. Ltd.
12	Ex.A-12:-	Original policy issued by the OP 2 to the complainant to his vehicle.
13	Ex.A-13:-	Copy of the Job Card Estimate issued by the VIN AUTO, Chitradurga.

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Copy of survey report

 

MEMBER               MEMBER           PRESIDENT

 

Rhr***