The complainant has filed the complaint against the opponent alleging deficiency of service.
The complainant’s case in brief is that he is the owner of the Tata Indica Viesta Car bearing registration No.KA 12 A 8537 which was purchased in the year 2013.The said vehicle was insured with the opponent bearing policy No.25331031120150053017 dated 23/03/2013 and the policy had an insurance period from 23/03/2013 to 22/03/2014.
The complainant submits that he is having a valid driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle throughout India, issued by the RTO Madikeri bearing DL.No.KA 12 20130003173 dated 18/05/2013 and the said vehicle is classified as light motor vehicle and hence the complainant is eligible to drive the above vehicle as per the classification.
The complainant submits that the above said vehicle met with an accident on 08/12/2013 in a place called Kota a Udupi Taluk as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of a Lorry which came from the opponent direction bearing registration No.KL 11 W 5671.The complainant submits that the FIR has been lodged by the Kota Police Station against the driver of the said Lorry in FIR No.253/13 dated 09/12/2013 under section 279 and 337 of IPC.The complainant further submits that due to the accident he had sustained bodily injuries and was admitted to Mahesh Hospital Brahmavar Udupi and the complainant had to take rest for some days due to which the complainant could intimate the information of accident to the opponent only on 23/01/2014 and hence had requested the opponent to ignore the delay in intimating the said accident to the opponent.
The complainant submits that the opponent had got the vehicle surveyed by a duly licensed surveyor attached to Auto Matrix, Mangalore on 24/01/2014 and had assessed the loss to the amount of Rs.3,37,375/-.The complainant submits that he had asked the opponent to treat the above said vehicle as total loss but the opponent had evaded its liability stating that the complainant did not have valid and effective driving license and the PSV badge.The complainant submits that the contention of opponent is false mischievous and evasive and the opponent had insisted the complainant to seek compensation from the company of the opposite vehicle which had caused the accident just to evade the responsibility.The complainant submits that the opponent had taken signature on various papers from the complainant to suit the version of the opponent.
The complainant submits that being frustrated with the delay tactics of the opponent, the complainant finally issued a legal notices to opponent on 31/07/2014 calling upon the opponent to either act upon the surveyor report or for delivery of new vehicle.The complainant further submits that the opponent partly issued a reply notice dated 22/08/2014 and had denied the liability.The complainant further submits that he had invested huge amount of money to purchase the above said vehicle for his livelihood by raising loan and had to pay monthly installments of more than 13,000/-.The complainant submits that the above said vehicle is kept in the custody of Tata Motors, Auto Matrix, Bejai Mangalore.The complainant had made a payment of Rs.10,500/- for toeing and other charges.The complainant further submits that, he had insured his vehicle with the opponent, with a hope and expectation that the opponent will come to the complainants rescue, in case of unforeseen events but the opponent’s attitude was wholly unbecoming and the complainant had suffered heavy loss.
The opponent states that on scrutinizing the documents submitted by the complainant the opponent found many defects.The opponent states that the complainant did not have valid and effective driving license and PSV badge to drive the said car at the time of the accident, which is both a criminal offence and violation of policy conditions.The opponent states that, the complainant realized that there was violation of policy condition and so withdrew the claim taking back the supporting documents which was submitted to the opponent, stating that the complainant would make claim against the lorry KL 11 W 5671.Hence, the claim of the complainant was closed.
The opponent states that the complainant on realizing the violation of the policy condition had withdrew the claim and hence there was no delay or negligence in processing the claim.
The following points arise for consideration.
Whether the complainant proves the shown deficiency of service by the opponent?
To what order the parties are entitled?
The findings on the above point are as follows;
Point No.1: Partly affirmative
Point No.2: As per order
R E A S O N S
Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that the above said vehicle had met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry No. KL 11 W 5671 at Kota of Udupi Taluk. The complainant states that he had a valid driving license to drive the said vehicle but on going through the documents it is found that the complainant had a valid license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle only.
The documents produced by the complainant in Ex.P.2 shows that a person holding an effective Learners license may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of passengers at the time of accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.The complainant has also produced the letter in Ex.P7 where in the complainant had intimated the opponent regarding his accident and hence requesting the delay to be condoned.Further the Insurance Policy was in force at the time of alleged incident.
The opponent has failed to show that at the time of the accident the vehicle had other passengers other than the driver of the vehicle.Hence, the complainant’s ill will or to make a unlawful gain is not proved by the opponent.In Ex.P11which is the reply notice of the opponent shows that the licensed independent surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.3,37,375/- and Ex.P2 shows the value of the said vehicle is Rs.4,22,875/-.
We are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be metif the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- being the repair charges and also awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to be paid by the opponent.
Accordingly we answered point No.1 affirmative.
Point No.2:- In view of our findings on point No.1 we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act by Sri.T.K. Aiyappa on 25/09/2014 against the National Insurance Co.Ltd., Mangalore Divisional Office 11, Rasik Chambers, Market Road, Mangalore is hereby partly allowed.
The opponent is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- being the repair charges to the complainant.
The opponent is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of the order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the said total amount of Rs.2,57,000/- from the opponent with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of the realization of the entire amount, subject to filing of the affidavit by the complainant, stating that he has not claimed the compensation from the Insurance Company of the Lorry, which is involved in the accident.
If this order is violated the complainant is also at liberty to file private complaint against the opponent for the offences punishable under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, which is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 19th day of May 2015)
