Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/178/2018

Suresh babu.H.P S/o Parameshwarappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

THe New India Assurance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.R.N.Parthalingappa

15 Feb 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:24/09/2018

DISPOSED      ON:15/02/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:178/2018

 

DATED: 15^th FEBRUARY 2019

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Suresh Babu H.P, S/o Parameshwarappa, Owner of Goods Vehicle Bearing Reg. No. KA 16-C-7981, Harlahalli Village, Srirampura Post, Hosadurg Taluk, Chitradurga   (Rep by Sri.R.N. Parthalinga, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The New India Assurance Company Limited, Has been Represented by its Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company limited, Branch office, Opp to Maganur Basappa Petrol Bunk, P.B. Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.P. Nanjundappa, Advocate)

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.5,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.90,000/- towards income, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and to grant such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the RC owner of goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-7981, the same has been purchased on 17.10.2018 for the purpose of livelihood and the entire family of complainant is depending upon the income derived from the said vehicle.  The said vehicle has been insured with the OP under policy No.68050631170300001280 for the period from 04.09.2017 to 03.09.2018 covering the third party risk, PA for owner cum driver for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the IDV of the said vehicle is of Rs.6,30,349/-.  One Shahid Pasha S/o Abdul Ajeej Sab was the driver of the vehicle, who is having valid DL.  It is further submitted that, on 03.01.2018 at about 9-30 PM the said vehicle came from Hosadurga towards Holalkere along with one Ramappa S/o Late Hanumanthappa and due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the said driver near Madhure Dibba dashed to the front going Tractor-Trailer.  Due to the said accident, the vehicle was entirely damaged.  After that, the complainant intimated the same to the OP insurance company through telephone and also the complainant has visited the office of the OP company and intimated the same in writing.  After that the OP company has appointed a surveyor, the surveyor of the OP company has visited the place and surveyed the vehicle.  The complainant has given claim form, RC, FC, DL of the driver and entire police papers and estimation copy for settlement of the claim to the OP for Rs.5,00,000/-  After the repair, the complainant has given entire original repair bills to the OP company for settling the claim on 20.04.2018.  In spite of receiving the original bills, the OP never settled the claim of the complainant till today.  The complainant and his family is entirely depending on the income of the said vehicle, but the said vehicle has been kept idle for 9 months and he has suffered loss of income for Rs.10,000/- p.m from the vehicle, in all the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.90,000/- for nine months.  The act of the OP is not proper and they are not acted like a prudent man.  The intention of the OP is only to drag on the proceedings for settlement of the claim, in which the complainant has to suffer mentally and financially which cannot be measured in terms of money.  The attitude of the OP is a deficiency of service, therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint.  The cause of action for this complaint arise on 03.01.2018 on the date of accident and also on 20.04.2018 when the complainant has given the entire bills to the OP which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

  3.    On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. P. Nanjundappa, Advocate and filed version.  According to the version filed by the OP, it is admitted that, the complainant is the RC owner of the above said vehicle and further admitted that, the above policy was in force as on the date of accident.  But it is denied that, the driver of the said vehicle was having valid DL to drive the said vehicle.  Further the allegations made in the complaint are denied as false.  Further it is submitted that, the vehicle of the complainant is a commercial goods carrying vehicle and it was involved in the accident on 03.01.2017 near Madhure Dibba, Hosadurga Taluk.  As per the FIR there was four days delay in lodging the complaint to the concerned Police and the Shahid Pasha was not the driver of the said vehicle at the time of accident.  As per FIR it clearly goes to show that, the said vehicle is a commercial goods carrying vehicle carrying a passenger by name Ramappa, who is also injured, he is not the owner of the said goods vehicle, he is not the owner of the said goods vehicle i.e., the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and on that ground the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  One Mr. Suryanarayana and Mr. N. Gurushantappa have assessed the damaged caused to the vehicle for Rs.2,71,499/-.  The OP offered the complainant for claim settlement on non-standard basis as there was a violation of policy terms and conditions.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-8 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OP, one Sri.Nagaraj Adiga, the Divisional Manager of OP has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and no documents have been got marked and closed their side.  

 

5.      Arguments 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 of the damaged vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-7981 belongs to the complainant 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.      Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the complainant and OP that, complainant is the RC owner of goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-7981, the same has been insured with the OP under policy No.68050631170300001280 for the period from 04.09.2017 to 03.09.2018 covering the third party risk, PA for owner cum driver for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the IDV of the said vehicle is of Rs.6,30,349/-.  One Shahid Pasha S/o Abdul Ajeej Sab was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, who is having valid DL.  On 03.01.2018 at about 9-30 PM the said vehicle met with an accident and due to the said accident, the said vehicle was fully damaged.  After that, the complainant intimated the same to OP.  The OP after receiving the information from the complainant, appointed a surveyor to assess the damage caused to the vehicle and submit the report to OP.  As per the report given by the surveyor, the damage caused to the vehicle is for Rs.2,71,499/-.  The complainant has produced the bill after repair of the vehicle for Rs.3,06,472/-.  The OP submitted the arguments that, one Shahid Pasha was the driver at the time of accident, who was having valid DL to drive the said vehicle.  But in this case, the OP has admitted all the averments of the complaint except the DL of the Driver.  The OP has fails to prove that, the driver of the said vehicle was not having valid DL at the time of accident.  But as per the Police records, it clearly shows that, one Shahid Pasha was the driver and was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident.  The FIR and charge sheet has been filed against the said Shahid Pasha, which clearly shows that, the said driver was having valid DL at the time of accident.  The OP has failed to produce the documents before this Forum to disprove the case of the complainant.  But they have taken only one contention that, the surveyor of the OP has assessed the damage caused to the vehicle for Rs.2,71,499/- and in other way, the OP has admitted that, the complainant is entitled for Rs.2,71,499/-, which shows that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP.

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant, those are marked as Ex.A-1 toA-9, which clearly shows that the complainant is the RC owner of the above said vehicle and one Shahid Pasha was the driver of the said vehicle at the time of accident.  The Ex.A-1 to A-3 are the Police documents which shows that, the accident was occurred on 03.01.2017 and one Shahid Pasha was the Driver of the said vehicle at the time of accident.  Ex.A-4 is the Motor Vehicles Accident Report given by the RTO, in the said report it also shows that, the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the said vehicle.  Such being the case, the version taken by the OP is not sustainable under law.  When the policy was in force at the time of accident, it is the bounden duty of the insurance company/OP to pay the damage caused to the vehicle.  In this case also, the surveyor of the OP has valued the damage caused to the vehicle for Rs.2,71,499/-.  But the bills produced by the complainant as per Ex.A-6 shows that, the cost of the repair is of Rs.3,06,472/-, it clearly goes to show that, the OP has committed deficiency of service in settling the claim of the complainant.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            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.2,71,499/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of accident i.e., 03.01.2017 till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income for idling of the said vehicle nearly for 9 months due to negligence on the part of OP.  

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

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 15/02/2019 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 OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. Nagaraj Adiga, the Divisional Manager of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	Complaint by one Ramappa
03	Ex-A-3:-	Charge Sheet
04	Ex-A-4:-	Motor Vehicles Accident Report
05	Ex-A-5:-	Spot Panchanama
06	Ex-A-6:-	Tax Invoice
07	Ex-A-7:-	Cash Receipt Vouchers
08	Ex-A-8:-	Tax Invoice

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**