BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 06^TH DAY OF JULY 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1.  Pass an order or give direction to the OP to pay/settle the claim on total loss basis and pay the entire loss amount of Rs.5,19,347/- together with interest in terms of damages.
2. Direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Any other order and awarding compensation and directs etc.,

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant is the owner of Renault Car bearing No.KA-51-MJ-2963 and has obtained insurance policy from the OP.  The complainant’s car met with accident on 01.11.2021 and the same was reported before the Kanakapura Traffic police. The said car fully damaged and not in a position to repair the same.  Hence the complainant has submitted his claim for vehicle damages.  

3. After submission of claim form to the OP, the surveyor of OP inspected the vehicle at showroom and promise to settle the loss as early as possible, but later the complainant received the letter dated 09.03.2022 from the OP that “intimation of the loss is not reported immediately and LLR licence holder was driving the motor vehicle at the time of accident and any motor vehicle unless the LLR holder has besides him a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle and they have further enquired the complainant to clarify with seven days from the receipt of letter. Immediately complainant visited the office of the OP and gave clarification.  Again the complainant has received a letter on 17.03.2022 stating that there is no communication from this complainant till date and the complainant has failed to intimate the driver details therefore they cannot process the claim and total loss basis and repudiated the claim.  

4. On the very same day of the accident one Madhu who had valid driving licence was sitting beside the LLR holder i.e., the driver of his vehicle one Chetan has lodged the complaint before the Kanakapura Traffic police, there was no delay in lodging the complaint, the entire police records reveals that chetan was the driver at the time of the accident. The complainant does not know the records available with the OP about the details furnished regarding the driver.  The OP without any basis or records have rejected the claims.  The complainant has also got issued legal notice on 25.08.2022 and requested the OP to settle the claim within 15 days.  Inspite of service of notice, the OP has neither given any reply nor settled the claim. Hence this complaint is filed.

5. In response to the notice, OP appears and files version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant is guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts and filed this frivolous and vexatious complaint and it deserves to be dismissed.

6. The OP has admitted having insured the vehicle of the complainant and issued policy which is valid from 28.06.2021 to 27.06.2021. The liability of this OP is limited to terms and conditions of the policy and as per the provisions of motor vehicles Act.

7. It is the case of the OP that they have received an own damage claim on 01.02.2022 stating that the insured vehicle herein had met with an accident on 01.11.2021 and the complainant has stated that due to the said accident the insured vehicle has got damaged. Immediately after receipt of the claim of the complainant it was duly registered.
8. It is further case of the OP that after verification of the claim documents sent by the complainant it was found that the intimation of the loss was given to the OP after lapse of 92 days, denying this OP from immediate inspection of the insured vehicle by his surveyor to assess the loss.  As per the terms and condition No.1 of the policy notice shall be given in writing to the OP company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and the complainant after giving information shall assist the company as and when required.

9. It is further case of the OP that as per rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 clearly states and prohibits the LLR holder from driving any motor vehicle unless he has besides him a person duly licensed to drive such motor vehicle. One Mr.Chethan was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and he was only having LLR and not having DL to drive the vehicle.  The said act of the insured handing the insured vehicle to a person not having DL is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy and also rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act.  The liability if any on the part of this OP shall be limited to and as per the loss assessed by the independent surveyor i.e., the amount must be limited to survey. Hence this OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant and he has not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Hence OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 12 documents.  Affidavit evidence of OP has been filed and OP relies on 06 documents.

11. Heard the arguments of advocate for both the parties.  Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties with documents and citations.

12. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

13. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative

Point No.2: Affirmative in part

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

14. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of both the parties, written arguments and documents filed by both the parties.
15. It is undisputed fact that the complainant is the RC owner of Renault car bearing Reg. No.KA 51 MJ 2963 which was met with an accident on 01.11.2021. The same as reported before the Kanakapura Traffic police. The said car was fully damaged and it was not in a position to repair. Hence the complainant has submitted his claim before the OP. the surveyor of the OP has personally inspected the vehicle at the showroom itself and promise to settle the claim. But later the complainant has received a letter from the OP that this complainant has not intimated the loss immediately and the LLR holder was driving the motor vehicle and further asked the complainant to clarify whether any person holding DL was sitting beside the driver of the vehicle at the time of incident.  Even though the complainant has clarified that one Madhu who had valid driving licence was sitting beside the LLR holder of the driver. The said Madhu had lodged complaint before the Kanakapura Traffice Police and there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Inspite of that the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant has got estimated the loss and also produced the estimation report and it discloses that the total amount of loss suffered by the complainant towards damage to the vehicle was Rs.5,19,347/-.  The said Trident Auto Enterprises have not yet opened the engine at the time of giving the estimation report.
16. In support of his contention the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on 12 documents. Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR with complaint, Ex.P2 is the copy of the Aadhaar card of the complainant, Ex.P3 & 4 are the copy of the policy and RC of the car, Ex.P5 is the copy of the Learner license of Chetan, Ex.P6 is the copy of the estimation of the car, Ex.P7 & P8 are the copy of the letter given by OP company,  Ex.P9 is the copy of the legal notice, Ex.P10 and 11are the copies of the postal receipts and acknowledgements, Ex.P12 is the copy of the Motor vehicles accident report.
17. On the other hand, Legal Executive of the OP company Smt.Vaishnavi Inamdar has filed her affidavit evidence and relied on six documents. Ex.R1 is the copy of the Private car package policy with terms and conditions, Ex.R2 is the copy of the claim form, Ex.R3 is the copy of the survey report, Ex.R4 is the copy of claim corresponding letters, Ex.P5 is the copy of the claim repudiation letter.
18. The OP has raised serious objection stating that the driver namely Chetan was holding only LLR and no person having DL was sitting beside him at the time of the incident and hence it is against the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant being the owner has handed over the vehicle to a person holding LLR and he was not sitting beside the person holding DL and it is against rule 3 of the Central Motors vehicles act.  There is 92 days delay in informing the OP about the loss. The complainant has prevented the OP company from conducting the survey of the vehicle immediately after the accident.  On these grounds the OP have repudiated the claim of the complainant
19. We have gone through the entire documents produced by the complainant, which clearly discloses that the vehicle met with accident on 01.11.2021 and the FIR was registered in CR NO.31/2021 as per Ex.P1 against the opposite vehicle u/s 279, 337 IPC.  The complainant has also produced the IMV inspection report as per Ex.P12 and it clearly discloses that the damages caused to the vehicle in the said accident. It is also clear from the Ex.P12 that the vehicle was severely damaged.  The complainant also got estimation report assessing the damages as per Ex.P6 and the loss estimated to Rs.5,19,347/-. 
20. On the other hand, the main contention taken by the OP is that the vehicle was driven by the driver who was holding only LLR at the time of the accident. But it is clear from the clarification given by the complainant that one Madhu who was with complainant, who lodged the complaint before the police was sitting beside the driver of the vehicle and the said Madhu was holding valid DL.  Under these circumstances, the complainant has not at all committed any offence or violated any terms and conditions of the policy according to Rule 3 of the Central Motors Vehicle Act.
21. The complainant has clearly stated that he has immediately informed the OP about the incident and the surveyor has inspected the vehicle in the showroom itself and also assured him that he will settle the issue as early as possible since the vehicle was fully damaged in the accident and it is not in a position to repair. The OP themselves have produced the estimation report issued by their surveyor as per Ex.R3 and the surveyor assessed the damages to Rs.3,05,378/-.
22. It is also undisputed fact that the vehicle was insured with the OP and policy was in force at the time of the accident.  As per the survey report submitted by the OP, clearly discloses that the vehicle was severely damaged and the net amount assessed is Rs.3,05,378/-.   Taking into consideration, the model of the vehicle and also terms and conditions of the policy and also the IDV value of the vehicle the complainant is entitle for the claim of Rs.3,05,378/- as per Ex.R3.  Even though the policy was in force and the complainant has given the proper clarification that the driver who was holding LLR was accompanied by a person holding DL at the time of the accident and he has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy. The OP has simply repudiated the claim of the complainant in order to avoid the liability to pay the amount. In view of this the complainant has suffered financial loss and also mental agony apart from the injuries suffered by his family members in the accident.  
23. Under these circumstances, the complainant has clearly established the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant is entitled for the relief. Therefore, we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.

24. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,05,378/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization.
3. OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- within litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
4. The OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this date, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 12% p.a. after expiry of 60 days on Rs.3,05,378/- till final payment.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 06^TH day of JULY 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;