Complaint filed on: 22-07-2016                                                      Disposed on: 11-05-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.102/2016

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF MAY 2017

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -           

Khaleed Pasha

S/o. Ameer Jan,

Aged about 40 years,

R/o. 3^rd Cross, Nazarabad,

Tumkur town

(By Advocate Sri.T.N.Gururaja)

                                            V/s            

Opposite party:-       

1. The Manager,

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, E-9, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022

2. The Manager,

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, Upstairs, Ayodhya Rama Shetty Complex, MG Road, Tumkur

3. The General Manager,

Regional Office,

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, (KH Road) Double Road,

Bengaluru

(OP No.1 by Advocate Sri.B.K.Chandrashekharaiah)

(OP No.2 and 3- Exparte)

                                                ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP Nos.1 to 3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to release the insurance amount of Rs.10,66,0141=00 on the said vehicle and vehicle for total loss, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant is the consumer of the OP No.1 to 3.  The OPs having insurance Company and they are running a insurance business to the movable vehicles by accepting the premium amounts from their customers from time to time.

          The complainant submitted that, the complainant is the RC Owner of the vehicle TATA LPT 1109 goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AC-5324. The complainant is the consumer of the OPs Company and he got insured his vehicle with the OPs under policy No.10003/31/16/207812 and same was valid from 5-8-2015 to 4-8-2016. On 2-5-2016 the said vehicle met with an accident at Lonavala, Maharastra State and the case was registered before the concerned police and the same was intimated to the OPs as per law. The vehicle sustained huge damage and later the vehicle was towed to Yaseen Lorry Body Works, Govinda Nagar, Near Railway Bridge Ring Road, Tumkur.

          The complainant further submitted that, thereafter the complainant had contacted the OPs personally and intimated the facts and sought for appointment of Survey officer to inspect the vehicle and to survey the damages.

          The complainant further submitted that, the said vehicle ID value is Rs.10,66,041/-. The complainant is claiming damages of the vehicle as a total loss, but the OPs denied to consider as total loss.

          The complainant further submitted that, after many requests and demands made to the OP, the OPs have not paid the total loss amount. But the OPs have dodged the same by one or the other reasons.  Hence, the complainant has suffered huge loss for which the OPs are held liable.

          Hence, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the OPs on 27-6-2016. In spite of service of the notice, the OPs have not paid the total loss amount for which the complainant has suffered huge financial difficulties due to deficiency in service of the OPs. Hence the present complaint is filed.

3. In response to the notice, the OP No.2 and 3 did not appear before the forum and they were called out absent and they have been placed exparte.

4. The OP No.1 has appeared before the forum through his counsel and filed objection contending interalia as under:

The complaint is not maintainable both in law and on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine and also non-joinder of necessary parties.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands. The 1^st OP does not admit the manner of accident. The accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods vehicle bearing No.KA-01-AC-5324. The accident was caused while overtaking other vehicle without observing vehicles coming on the road and caused the accident and due to that impact the lorry got damaged.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant has not furnished the documents as required under the IMV Act to claim OD. Hence the OPs have issued notice on 26-8-2016, 15-7-2016, 9-7-2016 and 2-7-2016 to the insured for furnishing of documents, but the complainant has not taken any steps.  

The 1^st OP further submitted that, all the allegations made in the complaint at paragraph no.2 to 8 are denied in toto. The complaint has valued Rs.10,66,041/- towards as total loss of the vehicle against to the IMV report.  The 1^st OP has valued/assessed through the company IRDA surveyor a sum of Rs.1,71,000=00. The complainant is not supposed to value or estimate the damages with his own or mechanic of the work shop.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, without prejudice to the above, the complaint without furnishing the photos and estimation cost by the authenticated repairer in a appropriate form, has estimated as total loss claiming compensation for the damages of vehicle as total loss a sum of Rs.10,66,041=00 against to the damages noted in the IMV report. Although the vehicle being old one and of the year of 2013 cannot claim so much. Though the items are not damaged claim has been made against the IMV report as reported by the transport authority. The company surveyor has conducted survey of the damaged vehicle and valued Rs.1,71,000=00 as per the damages noted in the IMV report. The OP submits that, the complaint is filed without documentary proof in support of the claim made and valued with their own whims and fancy and not approached this forum with correct and appropriate value of the damages as noticed in the IMV report. The OP submits that, the complainant has not produced the vehicle documents to the OPs. The liability if any to pay any compensation is subject to the terms and conditions, exceptions and limitation of the policy, valid FC, RC permit and confirmation of 64 VB of Insurance Act and valid driving license. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.     

5. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and OP No.1 have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaints and version. Both parties have filed their written arguments and produced documents which were marked as Ex-C1 to C15.  The 1^st OP has produced document along with a memo dated 4-1-2017 which were marked as Ex.P1 to P13. We have heard the arguments of both parties and pursed the documents and then posted the cases for orders.

6. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1.      Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?

2.      What Order?      

6. Our findings on the above points are;

                    Point no.1: In the negative

                    Point no.2: As per the final order below.

REASONS

          7. On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint, affidavit evidence of complainant, objections of the 1^st OP, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant is the RC owner of TATA LPT 1109 Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AC-5324. The complainant had insured his vehicle with the OPs Company under policy No.10003/31/16/207812 and the same was valid from 5-8-2015 to 14-8-2016.  On 2-5-2015 the above said vehicle met with road accident at Lonavala, Maharastra State. The case was registered before the concerned police and intimated the same to OPs Company. The damaged vehicle was towed to Yaseen Lorry Body Works, Tumkur for repair. To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has produced Certificate cum policy schedule, RC book of the vehicle and Deriving licence of the complainant. This evidence of complainant remains unchallenged, to disbelieve this evidence of complainant, there is no rebuttal evidence, therefore it is proper to accept the contention of the complainant.

          8. The main contention of the complainant is that, after the accident, the vehicle is completely damaged. The vehicle ID value is Rs.10,66,041=00 and the complainant is claiming the total loss of the vehicle. After many requests and demands made by the complainant, the OPs have not paid the total loss amount to the complainant. The OPs are denying taking the vehicle for total loss.

          9. On the contrary, the 1^st OP has vigorously contended that, the complainant has not furnished the documents as required under the IMV Act to claim own damages. The OPs have issued several notices dated 26-8-2016, 15-7-2016, 9-7-2016 and 2-7-2016 to the complainant for furnishing of documents like 1. Charge sheet, 2) third party vehicle details, 3) repair bill, 4) claim form, 5) third party property damages and 6) photos of the damaged vehicle with an authenticated estimated cost referring to the IMV report as estimated and assessed by IRDA independent surveyor. The complainant has not taken any steps for commencement of repair work of the damaged vehicle by coordination with company surveyor or to complete the repair work well in time and to produce the same to the surveyor for re-inspection to finalize for assessment. Therefore the claim application has been closed as no claim, as the complainant has not come forward to produce the documents as required.   

          10. The 1^st OP has further contended that, the complainant has valued Rs.10,66,041 towards total loss of the vehicle against to the IMV report. The 1^st OP has valued/assessed through the company IRDA surveyor and valued a sum of Rs.1,71,000=00. The vehicle being an old one of the year 2013 and hence claim for so much though not damaged cannot be given. The OPs Company surveyor has conducted survey of the damaged vehicle and valued Rs.1,71,000=00 as per the damages noted in the IMV report. The OPs Company has never refused to pay the damages and informed from time to time to the complainant to comply the mandatory provisions. Since the complainant has not come forward, the claim was closed as not complied well in time, and even now if the complainant approaches and complied, the 1^st OP is ready to pay the damages incurred as per the IRDA surveyor valued.

          11. On perusal of the notices/letters dated 26-8-2016, 15-7-2016, 9-7-2016 and 2-7-2016 issued by the OPs to the complainant, it is seen that, the OPs have requested the complainant to furnish the following documents i.e. 1) Complete repair work and produce vehicle for re-inspection, 2) Certified copy of FIR and Charge sheet, 3) Claim Form, 4) Repair bills and 5) CCC sheet for settlement of the claim. But the complainant has not furnished the above said documents to the OPs to settle the claim. Neither the complainant has replied to the notices/letters issued by the OPs. Hence, the complainant has not furnished the documents has required by the OPs. The OPs have not inspected vehicle and approve the claim of the complainant. Hence, it is premature to say that, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is only after furnishing the necessary documents as required under procedure and OPs could inspect the damaged vehicle and approve the claim of the complainant. Since, the complainant has not furnished required documents to the OPs for settlement of the claim. Hence the OPs have closed the claim of the complainant as no claim in letter dated 26-8-2016.

          12. However, the 1^st OP himself in his version as well as affidavit evidence stated that, the IRDA has conducted the survey and valued the damaged vehicle a sum of Rs.1,71,000=00. The OPs have ready to pay the damages incurred as per IRDA surveyor value, if the complainant is come and claim the damages. Hence, we come to conclusion that, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So it is just and proper to direct the complainant to approach the OPs with required document. Accordingly, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No costs.   

The complainant is at liberty to approach the OPs with proper documents as called for the OPs within 30 days from the date of this order. Further the OPs are directed to consider the claim of the complainant within one month thereafter.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 11^th day of May 2017)

LADY MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT