Karnataka

Gadag

CC/9/2017

Smt. Sudha.V.Upavasi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managind Director, Cholamandalam MSGen., Ins., Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

C.R.Vadakkannavar

28 Oct 2017

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant purchased a SKODA car bearing NO.KA25/Z-5353 with OP No.2 on 24.03.2016. The OP No.2 has transferred the said vehicle in the name of Complainant and OP NO.2 also agreed to transfer Insurance policy of the car in the name of Complainant. On 15.09.2016 car met with an accident on Laxmeshwar Gadag-Road, Near Mulagund Cross. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the car driver. It has been registered at Mulagund Police Station, the Crime No.137/2016. The Complainant has informed the same to OP NO.1 and OP No.1 has informed the Complainant to send the vehicle to Preeti Car Pvt. Ltd., Hubli for repair and the Complainant send it to the above said address. The surveyor of OP No.1 conducted the survey and estimated the cost of repair to a tune of Rs.3,11,958/-. But, OP No.1 after estimation dragged the settlement by one or the other reasons. Finally, OP No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground that insurance policy is not transferred in the name of the Complainant on the date of accident. Hence, Complainant has filed this Complaint against the Ops claiming the amount as per the Surveyor and other reliefs against Ops with interest.

3.       The Forum registered the case and issued a notice to the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through his advocate and filed Written Version. OP No.2 remained absent. The brief fact of written version of OP No.1 is as under:

OP No.1 admitted that the policy and submits that during the accident the Complainant had no insurable interest since the vehicle in question belongs to OP No.2 and insured in his name only. Here, the complainant had

 

not transferred the insurance in his name and neither intimated the change of ownership with the OP No.1. As per the M.V. Act, the insurance policy in the name of Complainant should be changed within 14 days and Complainant had failed to do so with unclean hands she had claimed the insurance amount. Hence, OP submits that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

4.      The complainant has filed his Chief affidavit along with 15 documents which are marked as EX C1 to C15 in support of his case. The documents are as follows:

EX C1	FIR and its enclosures
EX C2	IMV Report
EX C3	Charge Sheet,
EX C4	Insurance Policy Certificate,
EX C5	Estimation of Repair,
EX C6 to C14	Photos.

                                             

 

On the other hand, OP No.1 filed his Chief Affidavit along with 5 documents which are:

1. Insurance Policy along with Conditions,
2. Claim Repudiation Letter,
3. Survey Report,
4. R.C. Extract Copy,
5. Authorization Letter.
6. On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant proves that OPs are made deficiency in service?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

     6.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

     7.      We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the Complainant the material fact before the Forum is that the Complainant purchased a SKODA car bearing NO.KA25/Z-5353 with OP No.2 on 24.03.2016. The OP No.2 has transferred the said vehicle in the name of Complainant and OP NO.2 also agreed to transfer Insurance policy of the car in the name of Complainant. On 15.09.2016 car met with an accident on Laxmeshwar Gadag-Road, near Mulagund Cross. The Complainant has informed the same to OP NO.1 and OP No.1 has informed the Complainant to send the vehicle to Preeti Car Pvt. Ltd., Hubli for repaired and the Complainant sent it to the above said address. OP No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground that insurance policy is not transferred in the name of the Complainant on the date of accident. On the other hand, OP No.1 contended that the Complainant had not transferred the insurance in his name and neither intimated the change of ownership with the OP No.1. As per the M.V. Act, the insurance policy in the name of Complainant should be changed within 14 days and Complainant failed to do so.

 

 

   8.   Ongoing through the records on file, OP No.1 produced the Insurance Policy. It is true that the Insurance policy stand in the name of OP No.2. But, the insurance policy was in-force and the accident not denied by the OP and even OP No.1 had not denied the contention of the Complaint i.e. OP No.1 suggested the Complainant to send the vehicle for Preeti Cars Pvt. for repair and OP himself filed the Estimation Report of the survey done by the surveyor. The Forum has to discuss whether the Complainant had right to claim of the insurance of the vehicle or not? Ongoing through the records on file which has been produced by the Complainant unmarked document No.1. The correspondence letter made by OP No.1 to OP No.2. In this letter OP No.1 clearly mentioned as follows:

“Dear Sir/Madam,

This has reference to the claim documents submitted by you in support of the captioned claim. On a careful perusal of the claim documents and after independent inquiry, it is inferred that the vehicle has been sold to Mr/Mrs/Miss Sudha Upasi before date of loss. In view of these established facts, it is concluded that you are not having any insurable interest in the vehicle at the material time of accident.

We, therefore regret our inability to consider your claim.

We hope you will appreciate our stand that payment of any claim has to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued. While expressing our inability to pay this claim due to the above mentioned reason, we reiterate our commitment to pay all admissible claims fairly and promptly.”        

          The above said repudiation letter has been sent to OP No.2 and on the other hand, OP No.1 rejected the claim of

the Complainant also. Of course, the claim of the Complainant is on car which has been insured with the OP. When the vehicle has been met with accident, the insurable interest is even not in the name of the seller or the purchaser. But, the amount has been received by the insurance Company. Such being the case, the insurance Company can settle the claim in non-standard basis as per their surveyor itself. Of course, Complainant claimed more amount for the repair and even Complainant filed the document i.e. the Preeti Car issued a letter to the Complainant for Rs.1,46,733/- as parking charges, estimation charges, and GST charges. Such being the case, as per the direction of OP NO.1 Complainant parked his vehicle in Preeti car and Preeti Cars Pvt. Ltd. is the Authorized Service Centre of OP No.1. Merely, not changing insurance policy in the name of Complainant is not a big deal, but Complainant had changed the R.C. of the vehicle. We can punish the Complainant for his negligency by settling the matter to non-standard basis. Hence, here Complainant is entitled for relief partially as per the Survey of OP. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative and Point NO.2 is partly in affirmative.  

 9.   POINT NO.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following:  

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partly allowed with costs.
2. The OP No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,68,739/- (Rupees one lakh sixty eight thousand seven hundred and thirty nine) towards Surveyor Estimation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim within one month.
3. Further, OP No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards cost of litigation.
4. Claim against OP No.2 is hereby dismissed.
5. Further, OP No.1 is directed to comply this Order within thirty days from the date of this Order, failing which OP has to pay interest at 12% p.a. on Surveyor Estimation amount of Rs.1,68,739/- from the date of repudiation, till realization.
6. Further, Forum warns the OP not to practice unfair trade in future.
7. Send the copies of this Order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 28^th day of October, 2017)

 

 

(Shri B.S.Keri)                             (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

       Member                                                               President