Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/8/2017

Idris Baig s/o Ahamed Baig - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.Chandrashekarappa

04 Oct 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:23.01.2017

DISPOSED      ON:04.10.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 8/2017

 

DATED:  4th OCTOBER 2017

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

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

              

 

 

 

……COMPLAINANT/S

Idris Baig,

S/o Ahammed Baig,

Owner of Lorry bearing Reg.

No.KA-16 A 5891,

R/o Gowrammanahally Village,

Chikkabennur Post,

Chitradurga Taluk & District.

 

(Rep by Sri. K. Chandrashekarappa, Advocate)

V/S

 

 

 …..OPPOSITE PARTY

The Manager,

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Maganur Complex, Opp: SMST Lorry Office, P.B. Road, Chitradurga.

 

(ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.8,79,613-74 with interest at 12% p.a from 05.02.2015 and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the owner of lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-16 A 5891 and the same has been insured with the OP by paying premium of Rs.32,600/- vide cover note No.313000028418 and policy No.1406722334000324 valid for the period from 30.05.2012 to 29.05.2013 for an ID value of Rs.9,50,100/-.  It is further submitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 19.12.2013 at about 11-30 PM near Kelagalahatti village while going from Bheemasamudra to Bellary in order to unload the iron-ore.  By that time, one lorry bearing No.AP 31-TA 7449 came from Bellary in opposite direction dashed to the complainant’s lorry and caused the accident. It is further submitted that, the complainant transporting the iron-ore from BBH Mines to SLV Steel on 19.12.2013.  Due to the said accident, the lorry of the complainant fully damaged and on the same day the complainant intimated the same to the OP orally.  The Molkalmuru Police have registered a case in CR No.28/2013 and charge sheet also filed.  It is further submitted that, the surveyor of the OP and the Inspector of Motor Vehicle RTO, Chitradurga inspected the said lorry on 21.02.2013 and thereafter the complainant has submitted the claim form with estimate of repairs of vehicle to the OP in claim No.2131021140.  It is further submitted that, he has invested money to get repair the said vehicle and due to financial problem, he was unable to attend and complete the repairs of the vehicle and he approached the OP and requested to pay the initial payment for repair of the vehicle but, the OP did not respond to his requests.  It is further submitted that, due to financial difficulties and other domestic problems the complainant unable to get repair the vehicle and unable to produce the bills.  However, with great difficulty, the complainant has attended and completed the repairs.  It is further submitted that, the finance company has filed a case for recovery of loan amount before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in E.C No.308/2014 against the complainant.  The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta issued arrest warrant against the complainant, the complainant with great difficulty he obtained hand loan from his relatives and settled the loan dues for Rs.4,00,000/- and obtained the NOC and cancellation of the hypothecation from the RTO, Chitradurga.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has obtained money from his relatives and got repaired the vehicle and submitted the bill and payments before the OP but, the OP not ready to take the same and failed to discharge its duties against its customer which is a deficiency of service.  Then the complainant issued a legal notice by RPAD on 05.02.2015 to the OP regarding production of bills and re-inspection of vehicle for final approval of claim amount.  It is further submitted that, the complainant requested the OP to settle the claim, the OP neglected to discharge their duties.  The complainant suffered a lot after the accident because he was depending upon the earnings from the said vehicle for his livelihood.  Even though the complainant has visited the OP office several times for settlement of the claim but, the OP not entertain the complainant and not even issued repudiation letter for non-settling the claim.  The intention of the OP is make unlawful gain and cheat the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the complainant incurred Rs.3,77,613-74 towards repair of vehicle, Rs.25,000/- for travelling charges, Rs.15,000/- towards unload and Rs.10,000/- towards other expenses.  The complainant obtained a policy from the OP and it covers the claim to the complainant.  The complainant requested the OP on 05.02.2015 for payment of claim amount which was incurred towards repairs and other expenses but, till today the OP did not replied.  The complainant has produced all the bills to the OP for settlement.  The policy obtained by the complainant from the OP covers the entire repair charges of the vehicle and the complainant is the consumer under the OP.  It is further submitted that, the complainant visited the OP several times for settlement after issuance of the legal notice issued on 05.02.2015 but, till today OP never take any steps for settlement of the claim amount and drag on the matter on one or the other pretext.  The cause of action arose for the complaint on 19.02.2013 the vehicle met with an accident, 20.02.2013 and 21.02.2013 when the OP inspected the vehicle and issued the claim number to the complainant for submitting of the estimate repair bills on 01.08.2013, 20.09.2013, 08.10.2013 when the OP issued a letter to the complainant for production of repair and payment bills and when the legal notice issued on 05.02.2015 which are within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, prayed for allowing of the complaint.    

3.      On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. B.M. Anilkumar, Advocate and filed version denying the averments made in the complaint.  It is submitted that, the complainant insured his lorry with the OP under cover note No.312000028418 and obtained a policy No.1406722334000320 valid from 30.05.2012 to 29.05.2013 subject to terms and conditions.  The other allegations made in para No.2 is not known by this OP.  The allegations made in para 3 that, on 19.02.2013 at about 11-30 PM, lorry of the complainant bearing Reg.No.KA-16 A-5891 while going from Bheemasamudra to Bellary in order to unload the iron ore.  By that time the said lorry came near Kelagalahatti village, Molakalmuru Taluk one lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-31 TA-7449 came from opposite direction and dashed the lorry is not known to this OP.  It is further submitted that, it is true that, the complainant has intimated the same to the OP and further OP Company has deputed its surveyor for inspection and to submit the report.  As per the directions of the OP Company the surveyor has inspected the spot and submit his report.  The other allegations made in para 4 and the allegations made in para 5 to 16 are all false and not known by this OP.  This OP has denied the entire pleadings made in the complaint.  It is further submitted that, after receiving the legal notice from the complainant, the OP sent the letters to the complainant to produce the lorry along with necessary documents for settlement but, the complainant has failed to produce the vehicle for inspection.  The surveyor voluntarily conducted final survey and after deducting depreciation and fixed the cost of damages of vehicle for Rs.1,34,057/- and closed the matter.  But, the complainant keep quite nearly for two years.  After lapse of two years, the complainant has issued letter to the company and the company asked the complainant to produce vehicle for inspection but, the complainant never produced any documents or vehicle for inspection.  There is no cause of action for filing of this complainant and there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP.  After lapse of two years the complainant has filed this complaint and the same is barred by limitation.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has not produced any fitness certificate, permit or DL of the driver who was driving the lorry at the time of accident, which is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.      

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-18 were got marked.  On behalf OP one Sri.H.B. Guruprasad, Senior Manager of the OP Company has examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.B-1 to B-7 were got marked.    

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

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

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant is the owner of lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-16 A 5891 and the same has been insured with the OP by paying premium of Rs.32,600/- vide cover note No.313000028418 under policy No.1406722334000324 valid for the period from 30.05.2012 to 29.05.2013 for an ID value of Rs.9,50,100/-.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 19.12.2013 at about 11-30 PM near Kelagalahatti village while going from Bheemasamudra to Bellary in order to unload the iron-ore.  By that time, one lorry bearing No.AP 31-TA 7449 came from Bellary in opposite direction dashed to the complainant’s lorry and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the complainant lorry was fully damaged, the complainant intimated the same to the OP orally on the same day.  The Molkalmuru Police have registered a case in CR No.28/2013 and charge sheet filed.  The surveyor of the OP and the Inspector of Motor Vehicle RTO, Chitradurga inspected the said lorry on 21.02.2013 and the complainant has submitted the claim form with estimate to the OP under claim No.2131021140.  Complainant has invested huge money to get repair his vehicle and due to financial problem, he was unable to attend and complete the repairs of the vehicle and he approached the OP and requested to pay the initial payment for repair of the vehicle but, the OP did not respond to his requests.  Due to financial difficulties and other problems the complainant was unable to get repair the vehicle and produce the bills.  With great difficulties, the complainant has attended and completed the repair works.  But, the finance company has filed a case for recovery of loan amount before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in E.C No.308/2014 against the complainant.  The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta issued arrest warrant against the complainant, the complainant with great difficulty obtained hand loan from his relatives and settled the loan dues for Rs.4,00,000/- obtained NOC and cancellation of the hypothecation from the RTO, Chitradurga.  The complainant issued a legal notice through RPAD on 05.02.2015 to the OP regarding production of bills and re-inspection of vehicle for final approval of claim amount and requested the OP to settle the claim, but the OP neglected to discharge their duties for which the complainant suffered a lot because he was depending upon the earnings from the said vehicle for his livelihood.  Even though the complainant has visited the OP office several times for settlement of the claim but, the OP has not issued repudiation letter for settlement of the claim.  The intention of the OP is to make unlawful gain and cheat the complainant.  The complainant has incurred Rs.3,77,613-74 towards repair of vehicle, Rs.25,000/- for travelling charges, Rs.15,000/- towards unload and Rs.10,000/- towards other expenses etc.,.  The complainant obtained a policy from the OP and it covers the claim of the complainant.  The complainant requested the OP on 05.02.2015 for payment of claim amount which was incurred towards repairs and other expenses but, till today the OP not settled the claim.  The complainant has produced all the bills to the OP for settlement.  The policy obtained by the complainant from the OP it covers the entire repair charges of the vehicle and the complainant is the consumer under the OP.  The complainant visited the OP several times for settlement after issuance of the legal notice but, till today OP never take any steps for settlement of the claim amount and drag on the matter on one or the other pretext which is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.   

 9.     In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like Proposal-cum-cover note for package policy marked as Ex.A-1, Policy Schedule marked as Ex.A-2, Copy of the FIR in Crime No.28/2013 marked as Ex.A-3, Charge Sheet in Crime No.28/2013 marked as Ex.A-4, Copy of Spot Mahazar marked as Ex.A-5, Rough Sketch of incident place marked as Ex.A-6, Motor Vehicles Accident Report marked as Ex.A-7, Witness Statement of complainant marked as Ex.A-8, Receipt of toeing charge marked as Ex.A-9, 77 Photos of the damaged vehicle marked as Ex.A-10, 15 Cash Bills for having purchase of parts of the damaged vehicle marked as Ex.A-11, receipt for Rs.4,00,000/- given by the Magma Fincorp Limited to the complainant towards clearance of loan marked as Ex.A-12, Letter dated 28.01.2015 issued by the Magma Finance claiming loan amount marked as Ex.A-13, Office copy of the legal notice dated 05.02.2015 marked as Ex.A-14, certified copy of the RC marked as Ex.A-15, Permit marked as Ex.A-16, Certified copy of registration of the vehicle marked as Ex.A-17 and Certified copy of the DL Extract marked as Ex.A-18.

 10.  Advocate for OP argued that, the complainant has obtained policy bearing No.1406722334000320 valid from 30.05.2012 to 29.05.2013 subject to terms and conditions from the OP is not in dispute.  The OP has denied that the accident was not happened and it is not known by this OP.  Further argued that, the complainant has intimated about the accident to the OP and further OP Company has deputed its surveyor for inspection and to submit the report.  As per the directions of the OP Company, the surveyor has inspected the spot and submit his report.  As per the final survey and after deducting depreciation and fixed the cost of damages of vehicle for Rs.1,34,057/-.  It is further argued by the OP that, the complainant never produced the vehicle before the surveyor for inspection.  Further argued that, the driver of the complainant was not having valid DL and never produced necessary documents for settlement.  Further the complainant has filed this complaint after lapse of two years   

11.    On hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant has taken insurance policy to his lorry Reg.No.KA-16 A-5891 from the OP for a period from 30.05.2012 to 29.05.2013 for an ID value of Rs.9,50,000/- by paying premium of Rs.32,600/-.  The said lorry met with an accident on 19.02.2013 at about 11-30 PM near Kelagalahatti village, Molalkarmuru taluk and the same has been damaged, and the same been intimated by the complainant to the OP.  OP has deputed a surveyor to inspect the spot and submit the report advised the complainant to produce the lorry along the repair bills/documents.  According to the OP, the complainant has not produced the vehicle for inspection and documents for settlement.  The OP has taken a contention in his version/affidavit/written arguments that, the surveyor has inspected the spot and verified the vehicle and submit the report for damage caused to the vehicle.  Further the OP has stated that, the complainant has not produced the vehicle for inspection and documents for settlement.  But, the OP has taken two types of defence, it is not correct/believable.  The OP has relied on a documents, the same have been exhibited as per Ex.B-1 to B-6, those documents are not helpful to the OP.  But, the complainant has relied upon Ex.A-1 to A-18 documents.  Those clearly shows that, the vehicle met with an accident and the policy was in force at the time of accident.  As per the bill produced by the complainant, the repair cost of the vehicle is of Rs.3,55,000/- after deduction of depreciation, the same to Rs.2,66,000/-.  After accident, the vehicle kept before the guarage for repair up to two years because, the complainant is a poor person, he is not having money for repair the same.  After that, the complainant collected the money from his relatives and friends and get it repair the same.  After repair, he has submitted all the bills and necessary documents to the OP for settlement but, the OP has failed to settle the claim of the complainant, which caused the financial loss to the complainant.  The loss of income from the vehicle nearly Rs.2,00,000/- for two years.  In our considered opinion, after receiving all the necessary documents from complainant by the OP, the OP repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that, the complainant has not produced the but, there is no specific clause in the policy mentioned that, the complainant has to produce the vehicle when called by the insurance company.  Hence, in our considered view, the OP has committed a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in settling the claim made by the complainant.  Further the OP has been admitted that, the policy was in force as on the date of accident.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.           

            12.     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 C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,66,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of income from the vehicle.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

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 Member after the correction of the draft on 16/01/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. H.B. Guruprasad, Senior Manager OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01

Ex-A-1:-

Copy of Proposal-cum-cover note for package policy

02

Ex-A-2:-

Copy of Policy Schedule

03

Ex-A-3:-

Copy of the FIR in Crime No.28/2013

04

Ex-A-4:-

Charge Sheet in Crime No.28/2013

05

Ex-A-5:-

Copy of Spot Mahazar

06

Ex-A-6:-

Rough Sketch of incident place

07

Ex-A-7:-

Motor Vehicles Accident Report

08

Ex.A-8:-

Witness Statement of complainant

09

Ex.A-9:-

Receipt of toeing charge

10

Ex.A-10:-

77 Photos of the damaged vehicle

11

Ex.A-11:-

15 Cash Bills for having purchase of parts of the damaged vehicle

12

Ex.A-12:-

Receipt for Rs.4,00,000/- given by the Magma Fincorp Limited to the complainant towards clearance of loan

13

Ex.A-13:-

Letter dated 28.01.2015 issued by the Magma Finance claiming loan amount

14

Ex.A-14:-

copy of the legal notice dated 05.02.2015

15

Ex.A-15:-

Certified copy of the RC

16

Ex.A-16:-

Permit

17

Ex.A-17:-

Certified copy of registration of the vehicle

18

Ex.A-18:-

Certified copy of the DL Extract

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01

Ex-B-1 to B-3:-

Postal receipt

02

Ex-B-4:-

Survey report

03

Ex-B-3:-

Bill cum advance receipt

04

Ex-B-4 & 5:-

Quotation

05

Ex.B-6:-

Policy

06

Ex.B-7:-

C.D.

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.