The New India Assurance company ltd V/S D. Venkataramanappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/1873

D. Venkataramanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance company ltd - Opp.Party(s)

CJP

28 Oct 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/1873

D. Venkataramanappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The New India Assurance company ltd						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1873/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. D. Venkata Ramanappa, S/o. Late Chikka Venkatappa, Aged about 55 years, Devarajapalli Village, Pethapalya Post, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. Now at, No. 252, 9th Cross, Sir M. Vishveshwaraiah Road, Bommanahalli, Bangalore. Advocate (C.J. Prabhakara) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The New India Assurance Company Limited, No. 19/4, Domlur Main Road, R T Nagar, Bangalore. Represented by its Manager. Advocate (Ravi. S. Samprathi) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim for Rs.5,34,750/- and pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-40-540. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which is valid from 13.06.2007 to 12.06.2008. The said vehicle met with an accident on 01.01.2008 at 1 a.m. at Mettubande near Kolar. Due to the said accident severe damages were caused to the said vehicle. At the time of accident one Ganapathi @ Narayana Swamy driving the said vehicle who possessed valid and effective driving licence. Complainant intimated the OP about the accident and then made the claim petition. Unfortunately OP repudiated the said claim contending that one Ganapathi was the driver of the said vehicle and not Narayana Swamy. Though complainant is able to convince and prove that Ganapathi and Narayana Swamy are one and the same person, OP did not believe the submission of the complainant. For no fault of the complainant, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. For want of repairs the vehicle has become stand still due to the severe damages. When his requests and demands went in futile, he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. Though complainant is aware of the fact that the vehicle which met with an accident on that day is driven by Narayana Swamy, but still introduced to Ganapathi as a driver who alleged to have possessed the valid and effective driving licence. On the receipt of the communication from the complainant with regard to the accident OP got assessed the loss and damages through the surveyor and surveyor has opined that the loss suffered is only of Rs.1,28,490/- and not Rs.5,34,750/- as claimed by the complainant. OP even got investigated the matter with regard to the person who was actually driving the said vehicle. The investigator has submitted the report which shows Ganapathi was not driving the vehicle in question on that day. Under such circumstances when complainant has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, he is not entitled for the relief. OP after due application of mind repudiated the said claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C. Owner of the said vehicle bearing No. KA-40-540 and OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 13.06.2007 to 12.06.2008. It is also not at dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 01.01.2008 at about 1 a.m. or so near Mettubande, Kolar. According to the complainant on the alleged date of accident one Ganapathi, who possess the valid and effective driving licence to drive the category of the vehicle involved in the accident was driving it. The said Ganapathi is also called as Narayanaswamy. When he made the claim to OP with regard to the damages caused to the vehicle, OP repudiated it. According to the complainant he needs atleast Rs.5,34,750/- for the repairs of the said vehicle to make it road worthy. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that the repudiation made by the OP is unjust and improper. To substantiate the said fact that Ganapathi was driving the said vehicle on that day, complainant has produced the driving licence which shows that he has got the valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. He has also filed the affidavit of the said Ganapathi to the fact that he is also called as Narayana Swamy. Of course the statement given by the complaints - witness before the Police during the course of investigation, it is stated that Narayana Swamy was driving the said vehicle in question. If OP disputes the said fact, it would have produced the chargesheet submitted by the concerned Police after thorough investigation of the matter. But no steps are taken. Further statement recorded by the concerned Police shows that in a hurry witness has stated the driver name as Narayana Swamy, though his original name is Ganapathi @ Narayana Swamy. So there is nothing to dispute the statement recorded by the Police as well as the certificate issued by the Village Accountant and the affidavit sworn to by the said Ganapathi. Under such circumstances the defence set out by the OP appears to be baseless. 8. In this case almost all the facts are admitted except the identity of the driver of the said vehicle. As already observed by us, complainant is able to establish that driver Ganapathi is also called as Narayana Swamy they are the one and the same person and not two different persons. Under such circumstances the repudiation made by the OP appears to be unjust, improper and without due application of mind. 9. Of course complainant has claimed the damages of Rs.5,34,750/-, for this claim basically there is no proof. As contended by the OP their Surveyor has assessed the loss and damages to the tune of Rs.1,28,490/-. But when we go through the insurance policy issued by the OP the vehicle involved in the accident is of 1998 year model nearly 10 years old and the IDV value noted is Rs.1,00,000/-. The contents of the said policy are not disputed or denied by the complainant. Under such circumstances we find the justice will be met by directing the OP to settle the claim for the IDV value of Rs.1,00,000/- and pay Rs.5,000/- compensation towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards the litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the insurance claim for Rs.1,00,000/- the IDV of the vehicle and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1873/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. D. Venkata Ramanappa, S/o. Late Chikka Venkatappa, Aged about 55 years, Devarajapalli Village, Pethapalya Post, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. Now at, No. 252, 9th Cross, Sir M. Vishveshwaraiah Road, Bommanahalli, Bangalore. Advocate (C.J. Prabhakara) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The New India Assurance Company Limited, No. 19/4, Domlur Main Road, R T Nagar, Bangalore. Represented by its Manager. Advocate (Ravi. S. Samprathi) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim for Rs.5,34,750/- and pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-40-540. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which is valid from 13.06.2007 to 12.06.2008. The said vehicle met with an accident on 01.01.2008 at 1 a.m. at Mettubande near Kolar. Due to the said accident severe damages were caused to the said vehicle. At the time of accident one Ganapathi @ Narayana Swamy driving the said vehicle who possessed valid and effective driving licence. Complainant intimated the OP about the accident and then made the claim petition. Unfortunately OP repudiated the said claim contending that one Ganapathi was the driver of the said vehicle and not Narayana Swamy. Though complainant is able to convince and prove that Ganapathi and Narayana Swamy are one and the same person, OP did not believe the submission of the complainant. For no fault of the complainant, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. For want of repairs the vehicle has become stand still due to the severe damages. When his requests and demands went in futile, he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. Though complainant is aware of the fact that the vehicle which met with an accident on that day is driven by Narayana Swamy, but still introduced to Ganapathi as a driver who alleged to have possessed the valid and effective driving licence. On the receipt of the communication from the complainant with regard to the accident OP got assessed the loss and damages through the surveyor and surveyor has opined that the loss suffered is only of Rs.1,28,490/- and not Rs.5,34,750/- as claimed by the complainant. OP even got investigated the matter with regard to the person who was actually driving the said vehicle. The investigator has submitted the report which shows Ganapathi was not driving the vehicle in question on that day. Under such circumstances when complainant has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, he is not entitled for the relief. OP after due application of mind repudiated the said claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C. Owner of the said vehicle bearing No. KA-40-540 and OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 13.06.2007 to 12.06.2008. It is also not at dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 01.01.2008 at about 1 a.m. or so near Mettubande, Kolar. According to the complainant on the alleged date of accident one Ganapathi, who possess the valid and effective driving licence to drive the category of the vehicle involved in the accident was driving it. The said Ganapathi is also called as Narayanaswamy. When he made the claim to OP with regard to the damages caused to the vehicle, OP repudiated it. According to the complainant he needs atleast Rs.5,34,750/- for the repairs of the said vehicle to make it road worthy. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that the repudiation made by the OP is unjust and improper. To substantiate the said fact that Ganapathi was driving the said vehicle on that day, complainant has produced the driving licence which shows that he has got the valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. He has also filed the affidavit of the said Ganapathi to the fact that he is also called as Narayana Swamy. Of course the statement given by the complaints - witness before the Police during the course of investigation, it is stated that Narayana Swamy was driving the said vehicle in question. If OP disputes the said fact, it would have produced the chargesheet submitted by the concerned Police after thorough investigation of the matter. But no steps are taken. Further statement recorded by the concerned Police shows that in a hurry witness has stated the driver name as Narayana Swamy, though his original name is Ganapathi @ Narayana Swamy. So there is nothing to dispute the statement recorded by the Police as well as the certificate issued by the Village Accountant and the affidavit sworn to by the said Ganapathi. Under such circumstances the defence set out by the OP appears to be baseless. 8. In this case almost all the facts are admitted except the identity of the driver of the said vehicle. As already observed by us, complainant is able to establish that driver Ganapathi is also called as Narayana Swamy they are the one and the same person and not two different persons. Under such circumstances the repudiation made by the OP appears to be unjust, improper and without due application of mind. 9. Of course complainant has claimed the damages of Rs.5,34,750/-, for this claim basically there is no proof. As contended by the OP their Surveyor has assessed the loss and damages to the tune of Rs.1,28,490/-. But when we go through the insurance policy issued by the OP the vehicle involved in the accident is of 1998 year model nearly 10 years old and the IDV value noted is Rs.1,00,000/-. The contents of the said policy are not disputed or denied by the complainant. Under such circumstances we find the justice will be met by directing the OP to settle the claim for the IDV value of Rs.1,00,000/- and pay Rs.5,000/- compensation towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards the litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the insurance claim for Rs.1,00,000/- the IDV of the vehicle and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.