Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/223/2018

Koonala Hanumakka w/o Thimmareddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Reliance general insurance co ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri K.R.Babureddy

11 Jun 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :15/11/2018

               DISPOSED ON:13/06/2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 223/2018 DATED:13th JUNE 2019

 

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

SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,         :     LADY MEMBER

                             SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N         :     MEMBER

                                      M.Com., LL.B.,

COMPLAINANT/S	Koonala Hanumakka W/o Thimmareddy. R.C. Owner of Lorry No.KA-16-C-7273, R/o Koonal Nivasa, Near Channakeshava Temple, C.K.Pura, Kelagote, Chitradurga.    (Rep by Smt/Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTY	The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maganoor Basappa Commercial Complex, 1st Floor, P.B.Road, Chitradurga.   Pol.No.140621823340003761 Valid from 13/06/2018 to 12/06/2019    (Rep by Smt/Sri.B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

The complainant has been filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OP to direct the OP to pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, costs  and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the RC owner of Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-7273 which was insured with the OP under Policy No.140621823340003761 valid for the period from 13.06.2018 to 12.06.2019 covering risk.  It is further submitted that, on  29.06.2018 at about 5-30 AM near S.V. Godown Kondkjondla village fields, Vajrakarur Mandal,, Ananthpur District, Andhra Pradesh, the above said vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle was damaged severely.  After the accident, the complainant shifted her lorry to Cauvery Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kanakapura Road, Bangalore for repairs, who given an estimation for a sum of Rs.4,51,592/- towards repairs.  Thereafter, the complainant intimated the same to the OP insurance company about the damage of the vehicle and death of the driver at the spot and given claim form along with all the vehicular documents to the OP to settle the claim, but the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that, the driver of the said vehicle Mr. Chandpeer was having DL to drive LMV-GV class vehicles and the DL was expired on 29.04.2018, which is prior to the date of accident, which is a violation of Rules.  The complainant requested and demanded the OP orally on several times, but the OP drag on the matter and given evasive answer, thereby, the complainant has suffered lot, put into great mental shock and great financial loss.  It is further submitted, the duty of the OP is to settle the claim made by the complainant, but the OP never discharged their duty, which is a deficiency of service, for which the complainant has sustained financial loss of Rs.15,00,000/-.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 29.06.2018, the date of accident and subsequently when the complainant submitted claim form for settlement of the claim, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence prayed for allow the complaint. 

 3.    After service of notice, one Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed his version.  According to the version filed by the OP, it is admitted that, the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as required under C.P Act and also under the policy issued by the OP and M.V Act.  It is further submitted that, the OP has issued policy to the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-7273 for the period from 13.06.2018 to 12.06.2019 in the name of complainant covering own damage for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- i.e., IDV and also covering the risk of one WC employee i.e., paid driver, compulsory PA to owner cum driver for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same is force for the terms and conditions of policy and MV Act and confirmation of 64 VB.  It is further submitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.06.2018 at about 5-30 AM and the same was intimated to the OP on 02.07.2018.   The OP has appointed one surveyor by name Sri. Ananda Ojaswin to conduct final survey, who has given report assessing the insurance liability for an amount of Rs.2,65,746/- and the complainant has given claim form with an estimation along with police papers, DL signed by the complainant.  As on the date of accident, the driver by name Sri. Chandpeer had a DL to drive LMV non transport vehicle from 27.07.2011 to 03.02.2026 and also to drive LMV-GV from 30.04.2015 to 29.04.2018 and he was not authorized to drive LGV on the date of accident, which is a violation of MV Act condition No.3, 8 and 9 and also violation of General Exception 3(b) of the policy.  It is further submitted that, on receipt of claim form on 12.08.2018, the OP has repudiated the claim stating that, the company is unable to process the claim due to breach of driver clause of the motor insurance policy and provisions of MV Act, since DL was not renewed and expressed their inability to settle the claim.    Therefore, the OP has not committed any deficiency of service and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Complainant herself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to     A-12 and closed her side.  One Sri. Pradeep. D.S, the legal Claims Manager of OP Company examined as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-9 documents and closed their side.     

 

5. Heard the arguments.  

 

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

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant proves that, the OP has failed to settle the claim towards repair of his vehicle, which met with an accident on 29.06.2018, when the policy was in force at the time of accident and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

       

7. Our findings on the above points are as follows.

 

        Point No.1:-Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:-It is not in dispute between the parties that, the complainant is the RC lorry bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-7273, the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.140621823340003761 and the same was in force from 13.06.2018 to 12.06.2019, for an IDV of Rs.5,00,000/-.  On 29.06.2018 at about 5-30 AM, the said vehicle was met with an accident near .V. Godown Kondkjondla village fields, Vajrakarur Mandal,, Ananthpur District, Andhra Pradesh and completely damaged and the driver died at the spot.   The complainant shifted her lorry to Cauvery Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kanakapura Road, Bangalore for repairs, who given an estimation for a sum of Rs.4,51,592/- towards repairs and intimated the same to the OP insurance company and submitted claim form along with all the vehicular documents to the OP to settle the claim.  But the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that, the driver of the said vehicle Mr. Chandpeer was having DL only to drive LMV-GV vehicles and the DL was expired on 29.04.2018 i.e., prior to the date of accident, which is a violation of Rules.  For that, complainant has suffered lot, put into great mental shock and great financial loss.  When the policy was in force as on the date of accident and when the vehicle is met with an accident, the duty of the OP is to settle the claim made by the complainant.  But the OP failed to settle the claim, which is a deficiency of service, for which the complainant has sustained financial loss of Rs.15,00,000/-.  The OP has appointed a surveyor for assessment of the damage caused to the vehicle.  The surveyor inspected the vehicle and given report assessing the damage caused to the vehicle for an amount of Rs.2,65,746/-.  At the time of accident, the policy was in force.  Further the OP is agreed that the complainant has intimated about the accident.  The complainant has also produced the final survey report the same has been prepared by the insurance surveyor and loss assessor.  As per the estimation given by one surveyor by name Sri. Ananda Ojaswin to conduct final survey, who has given report assessing the insurance liability for an amount of Rs.2,65,746/- and the complainant has given claim form with an estimation along with police papers, DL signed by the complainant.  But as on the date of accident, the driver by name Sri. Chandpeer had a DL to drive LMV non transport vehicle from 27.07.2011 to 03.02.2026 and also to drive LMV-GV from 30.04.2015 to 29.04.2018 and he was not authorized to drive LGV on the date of accident, which is a violation of MV Act condition No.3, 8 and 9 and also violation of General Exception 3(b) of the policy.  Therefore, the OP has repudiated the claim stating that, the company is unable to process the claim due to breach of driver clause of the motor insurance policy and provisions of MV Act, since DL was not renewed and expressed their inability to settle the claim, which is not sustainable.  

   9.        We have gone through the entire documents filed by both parties. No doubt the driver of the complainant was having the DL to drive LMV for the period from 2011 to 2026, but the Advocate for the OP has raised his objection that, on the date of accident, the driver of the complainant was not having the valid DL.  But in this case, the driver of the complainant was having LMV non transport DL.  The final surveyor of the OP assessed the loss of the damaged vehicle in the accident is of Rs.2,65,746/-, but the IDV of the said vehicle is of Rs.5,00,000/-.  The exhibits produced by the complainant clearly shows that the driver of the complainant was having LMV non transport license as on the date of accident and he was not having the DL to drive LGV.  Anyhow, the driver of the complainant was having the DL at the time of accident.  The estimation of the damaged vehicle is of Rs.4,51,592/- and the complainant also produced the estimation copy before this Forum, but the final surveyor report of the OP was assessed at Rs.2,65,746/-.  Therefore, this Forum comes to the conclusion that the amount assessed by the final surveyor is just and correct and the repudiation made by the OP is not correct.  If the driver of the complainant driven the vehicle without valid DL, the amount is to be assessed on non-standard basis.  In this case, the final surveyor estimated the cost of the damaged vehicle for Rs.2,65,746/-, therefore, the repudiation made by the OP is not correct and the same is deficiency of service on its part.  So, in any angle, we find that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP for not settling the claim of the complainant.    Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as affirmative. 

 

10.   Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

ORDER

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

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,65,746/- to the complainant towards repair charges of the damaged vehicle as per the final survey report of the surveyor of the OP along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of accident i.e., from 29.06.2018 till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of earning of the vehicle to the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 13/06/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:- Sri.Pradeep. D.S, the Legal Claims Manager of OP by filing affidavit evidence

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Letter dated 12.08.2018 by the OP
02	Ex-A-2:-	FIR
03	Ex-A-3:-	Complaint
04	Ex-A-4:-	Inquest report
05	Ex.A-5:-	PM report
06	Ex.A-6:-	Report of MV Inspector
07	Ex.A-7:-	Death Certificate dated 17.07.2018
08	Ex.A-8:-	Insurance Policy
09	Ex.A-9:-	Estimation
10	Ex.A-10:-	Job Card Invoice
11	Ex.A-11:-	DL
12	Ex.A-12:-	Extract of DL

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Policy
02	Ex-B-2:-	Claim Form
03	Ex-B-3:-	FIR
04	Ex.B-4:-	B-extract
05	Ex.B-5:-	RC
06	Ex.B-6:-	DL
07	Ex.B-7:-	Final Survey report
08	Ex.B-8:-	Repudiation letter dated 12.08.2018
09	Ex.B-9:-	Postal receipt

 

 

LADY MEMBER       MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Rhr.