BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 3171/2011
Sri Vigil Gopakumar, Aged about 24 years, S/o S. Gopakumar, Residing at No.267, Building No.45, KHB Colony, K.S. Town, Bangalore 560 060. (By Sri M.C. Ravikumar) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | The National Insurance Company Ltd., No.982, 2nd 80 feet Peripheral Road, S.T. Bed Area, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034, Rep. by Branch Manager. (By Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda) | …Respondent/s |
2. | Kalyani Motors, No.16, Muneshwara Farm, 100 Feet Road, Pantarapalya, Behind IOC Petrol Bunk, Mysore Road, Bangalore 560 039, Rep. by its authorized dealer. (By Sri M. Shivappa) | |
ORDER
BY SMT. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.31.05.2011 passed in CC.No.742/2011 on the file of 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No. KA-41-M-9818 purchased from Opposite Party No.2. The car was insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide policy No.70252326 which is valid from 19.06.2009 to 18.06.2010. The complainant had learners driving license. The complainant with his father who was having valid driving license was in possession of car. On 27.09.2009 the accident occurred was attributable to the gross negligence of BMTC bus driver. One Mr. Inayath was the victim of the said accident. Without asserting the true facts, the wife of the deceased had filed a wrong complaint attributing negligence on the complainant. After the accident, being intimated to the police, the police made spot inspection made a wrong entry as if the father of the complainant was driving the vehicle. When the complainant came to know of it, he made a detailed claim by furnishing the second claim. The Opposite Party No.2 has quoted a price higher than the value of the new car for repair. Since the vehicle is insured, the Opposite Party No.1 bound to make good of the claim, but the same was repudiated. Hence, the complaint.
3. The Opposite Party No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed his version. The Opposite Party No.1 in their version contended that the ownership of the vehicle, its insurance and its repudiation are all admitted. On 27.09.2009, the complainant along with his friend Mr. Nishanth was travelling in the car. The complainant was driving the car and met with an accident by a scooter and BMTC bus and due to it, the rider of the scooter died. The complainant and his friend Mr. Nishanth sustained injuries. They were treated in the hospital. After the accident, the complainant informed the same to this Opposite Party and also submitted a claim form stating that at the time of accident his father was driving the car. Accordingly, this Opposite Party scrutinized the papers including photographs. The photographs reveal that if any person sitting in front side of the car at the time of accident, he would have sustained injuries, but, the father of the complainant did not sustain any injuries. Hence, this Opposite Party enquired with the complainant in this matter. The complainant submitted one more claim form on 25.11.2009 stating that he was driving the vehicle and he had LLR, his father was sitting in front on the left side of the seat. This was not explained properly. The Opposite Party entrusted the matter to investigator who had investigated and collected the police records and other records and found that it was the complainant who was driving the vehicle, Mr. Nishanth was sitting on left side, at the time of accident and front side of the car was completely damaged. Both Mr. Nishanth and the complainant sustained injuries and the complainant has suppressed this matter. Because of all these things, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim.
4. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,69,019/- within 30 days from the date of Order. Failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from 27.09.2009, till realization along with cost of litigation.
5. Being aggrieved the said Order, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal. Heard the arguments.
6. Perused the appeal memo and the Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.KA-41-M-9818 which was insured with the Opposite Party No.1 vide policy bearing No.70252326 and insurance was valid between 19.06.2009 and 18.06.2010. It is also an undisputed fact that on 27.09.2009, the vehicle was met with an accident and value declared was Rs.4,13,876/-. Looking to the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the accident took place between the complainant, BMTC Bus Driver and scooter wherein scooterist was died on the spot, the complainant and his friend sustained injuries. A criminal case was registered against the complainant by the wife of the deceased scooterist. The complainant never stated how the accident took place and who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant changes his statement, once he says he was driving the car, once he says he had LLR license, hence, his father was driving the car. Every time, the complainant changes his statement, however, the insurance company investigated the matter through investigation agency clearly stated that the complainant was driving the vehicle and his father was not at all in the car on the date of accident and the persons sitting in front side will sustain injuries. The complainant and his friend Mr.Nishanth sustained injuries means in that car the complainant and his friend were present. As per the investigation agency, the insured hiding true facts and not informed actual cause of accident. Due to the negligence of the complainant, the vehicle met with an accident and these are the reasons for repudiation of claim by the insurance company. However, after considered the facts and evidence, the District Commission awarded 65% of the value of the car after deduction of 35% amount on non-standard basis. The District Commission deducted the 35% for lapse of misleading on the part of the complainant. We found that there is no any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the District Commission. Even though there are difference statements by the complainant about the accident, the complainant made mis-representation to the insurance company on the material fact. The District Commission after considering the facts and evidence has awarded the above amount to the complainant is just and proper. Considering the contention of the complainant, the father of the complainant was in the car at the time of the accident, the District Commission awarded such amount by sympathetically. The insurance is made by the people because at the time of need they get redress. Moreover the insurance company did not prefer any appeal against the order of District Commission means the finding of the District Commission was justified in the eyes of the insurance company. Hence, the appeal does not require any interference. We do not found any merits in the appeal. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
