The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., V/S 1) S.N. Mare Goud 2) Vikas S.N - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/2390/2009

1) S.N. Mare Goud 2) Vikas S.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

V.Prakash

19 Jun 2010

ORDER

IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/2390/2009

1) S.N. Mare Goud 2) Vikas S.N						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co., 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

Date of Filing:23.10.2009 Date of Order:04.02.2010 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2390 OF 2009 1. S.N. Mare Goud, 123, B-2, Malaprabha Block, NGV Complex, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. 2. Vikas. S.N, 123, B-2, Malaprabha Block, NGV Complex, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. Complainants V/S 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Issue Office Code-423 101, Issue Office Name-B.O. Adugodi, No.6, 7th Main, Above Spencers 80 Feet Road, III Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034. 2. Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., O.D. Claims Service Centre (Vehicles) Leo Shopping Complex, 44/45, Residency Road Cross, P.O. Box-25123, Banglalore-560 025. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant No.1 is a retired Assistant Executive Engineer. Complainant No.2 is the son of complainant No.1. Opposite parties had issued vehicle insurance policy No.421400/2005/2144 in the name of Mr. Mare Goud for vehicle No. KA 01 X 1876 Bajaj Pulsar 180 two wheeler as per the RC book. For the same vehicle opposite party company issued policy No.423101/31/2009/17335. The period of policy was from 13/01/2009 to 12/01/2010. Policy was issued on the basis of original RC book and physical presentation of vehicle for inspection. Complainants have brought to the notice of opposite parties the discrepancy in the name of the policy. The opposite party told the complainant that the policy is valid, for any claim there will be no problem. Policy has been issued wrongly in the name of Vikas S.N instead of Mr. Mare Goud, though the complainant followed the procedures correctly by producing original RC book and vehicle for physical verification. As per the procedure for issuing policy, owner has to produce RC book with Xerox copy and physical presentation of the vehicle for inspection. Only after examination of RC book policy will be issued. As per policy there was coverage to insurance at the time of accident on 20/03/2009. The opposite parties have denied the claim unlawfully for the mistake made by them. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to pay Rs.16,714/- with interest and compensation. 2. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Mr. M.R.R Advocate undertook to appear for the opposite parties on 20/11/2009. But he has failed to file Vakalath on behalf of opposite parties. The opposite parties have also not filed defence version. The opposite parties have not even sent defence version by post. Opposite parties have not participated in the proceeding. They remained exparte. 3. Complainants have filed affidavit evidence. Arguments of learned Advocate for the complainant heard. 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us, the following points arisen for consideration:- 1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amount of Rs.16,714/-? 2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? REASONS 5. I have gone through the complaint averments, evidence and the documents. The complainant has produced earlier policy issued by the opposite party which is for the year 2004-05. This policy is in the name of Mare Goud, the first complainant. The complainant has produced motor insurance certificate cum policy. The period of insurance is in respect of vehicle No.KA 01 X 1876 Bajaj Pulsor 180. The declared value of the vehicle is Rs.27,000/-. This policy is issued in the name of Mr. Vikas S.N. The complainant has produced copy of certificate of registration. The said vehicle is registered in the name of Mare Goud. The vehicle stands in the name of Mare Goud as per RC records. The complainant has produced letter of S.N. Vikas dated 14/05/2009. He has stated in the letter that the vehicle is in the name of his father and the same is insured with the opposite party office. The insurance is for the vehicle and not for the person. The proposal was done by the development officer as per the records. It was verified by the departmental officials. Raising objection at the time of claim is not valid and he requested to approve the claim. The complainant has produced reputation letter of opposite party dated 05/05/2009. The said letter reads as under:- To Mr. Vikas S.N # 123, Malaprabha Blk NGV Complex Koramangala Bangalore-560 047. Dear Sir, Re: Accident to Vehicle No:KA 01 X 1876 on 20/03/2009- PolicyNo:423101/31/2009/17335-Insured: Mr. Vikas. S.N This has reference to your intimation letter reporting accident to your vehicle No.: KA 01 X 1876. On scrutiny of your claim papers, we noticed that as on the date of accident, i.e., 20/03/2009 insurance policy stands in the name of Mr.Vikas S.N and as per vehicle Certificate of Registration ownership of vehicle is in the name of Mr. Mare Goud. As per insurance policy terms, both Registration Certificate and Policy should be in the same name, otherwise the company shall have no liability in respect of loss or damage to the vehicle. Hence there is No Insurable Interest at the time of loss. We request to inform you that we are unable to consider the claim and the claim stands repudiated. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- DEPUTY MANAGER Sd/- 6. It appears that the only objection taken by the opposite parties in repudiating the claim is that, policy stands in the name of Vikas S.N who is none other than the son of registered owner of the vehicle. For this discrepancy or mistake the complainant cannot be held responsible. Because admittedly the vehicle stands in the name of Mare Goud in the RC records. Mare Goud is the registered owner of the vehicle. Before issuing policy the opposite parties definitely could have seen the RC book and the particulars of vehicle etc.,. Policy is rightly issued in respect of the vehicle No.KA 01 X 1876. The particulars of vehicle have been mentioned in the policy correctly. The opposite parties officials while issuing policy inadvertently written the name of Vikas S.N in the column of insured name. For the mistake of opposite party officials the complainant cannot suffer loss because it is the duty and obligation of the opposite party company to see the RC records of the party and issue the policy in the name of the person on whose name, the vehicle is registered. So under these circumstances, there is absolutely no reason or justifiable ground on the part of opposite party to repudiate the claim. More over Vikas S.N has no objection to allow the claim put up by his father Mare Goud and he has also given letter to the opposite party company on 14/05/2009. There is no question of putting another claim by Vikas S.N on the basis of policy. Once the claim put up by Mare Goud is settled. The vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle has been got repaired in the authorised service center of Bajaj. The complainants have produced bills and receipts of repairs. The total amount spent by them is Rs.16,714/-. The declared value of the vehicle is Rs.27,000/-. Therefore, the policy covers the period of accident. It is the duty and obligation of the opposite party company to allow the claim and pay the cost of repairs. The insurance company cannot take objection on technical grounds. Complainant herein being a consumer under the C.P Act, his interest deserves to be protected. The opposite parties have not appeared and contested the matter. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainants. The complainants have proved and established that they are entitled for the claim amount. It is just, fair and reasonable to order the opposite party to pay sum of Rs.16,714/-. The complainants have prayed for grant of compensation for mental agony and harassment etc.,. But on the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met in ordering the opposite party company to pay the cost of repairs. Therefore, grant of compensation is not considered. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents, it is a fit case to allow the complaint. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.16,714/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay interest at 6% p.a on that amount from the date of filing complaint till payment/realisation. 8. The complainants are also entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the present proceeding from the opposite party. 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT I concur the above findings. MEMBER rhr.

Date of Filing:23.10.2009 Date of Order:04.02.2010 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2390 OF 2009 1. S.N. Mare Goud, 123, B-2, Malaprabha Block, NGV Complex, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. 2. Vikas. S.N, 123, B-2, Malaprabha Block, NGV Complex, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 047. Complainants V/S 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Issue Office Code-423 101, Issue Office Name-B.O. Adugodi, No.6, 7th Main, Above Spencers 80 Feet Road, III Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034. 2. Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., O.D. Claims Service Centre (Vehicles) Leo Shopping Complex, 44/45, Residency Road Cross, P.O. Box-25123, Banglalore-560 025. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant No.1 is a retired Assistant Executive Engineer. Complainant No.2 is the son of complainant No.1. Opposite parties had issued vehicle insurance policy No.421400/2005/2144 in the name of Mr. Mare Goud for vehicle No. KA 01 X 1876 Bajaj Pulsar 180 two wheeler as per the RC book. For the same vehicle opposite party company issued policy No.423101/31/2009/17335. The period of policy was from 13/01/2009 to 12/01/2010. Policy was issued on the basis of original RC book and physical presentation of vehicle for inspection. Complainants have brought to the notice of opposite parties the discrepancy in the name of the policy. The opposite party told the complainant that the policy is valid, for any claim there will be no problem. Policy has been issued wrongly in the name of Vikas S.N instead of Mr. Mare Goud, though the complainant followed the procedures correctly by producing original RC book and vehicle for physical verification. As per the procedure for issuing policy, owner has to produce RC book with Xerox copy and physical presentation of the vehicle for inspection. Only after examination of RC book policy will be issued. As per policy there was coverage to insurance at the time of accident on 20/03/2009. The opposite parties have denied the claim unlawfully for the mistake made by them. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to pay Rs.16,714/- with interest and compensation. 2. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Mr. M.R.R Advocate undertook to appear for the opposite parties on 20/11/2009. But he has failed to file Vakalath on behalf of opposite parties. The opposite parties have also not filed defence version. The opposite parties have not even sent defence version by post. Opposite parties have not participated in the proceeding. They remained exparte. 3. Complainants have filed affidavit evidence. Arguments of learned Advocate for the complainant heard. 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us, the following points arisen for consideration:- 1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amount of Rs.16,714/-? 2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? REASONS 5. I have gone through the complaint averments, evidence and the documents. The complainant has produced earlier policy issued by the opposite party which is for the year 2004-05. This policy is in the name of Mare Goud, the first complainant. The complainant has produced motor insurance certificate cum policy. The period of insurance is in respect of vehicle No.KA 01 X 1876 Bajaj Pulsor 180. The declared value of the vehicle is Rs.27,000/-. This policy is issued in the name of Mr. Vikas S.N. The complainant has produced copy of certificate of registration. The said vehicle is registered in the name of Mare Goud. The vehicle stands in the name of Mare Goud as per RC records. The complainant has produced letter of S.N. Vikas dated 14/05/2009. He has stated in the letter that the vehicle is in the name of his father and the same is insured with the opposite party office. The insurance is for the vehicle and not for the person. The proposal was done by the development officer as per the records. It was verified by the departmental officials. Raising objection at the time of claim is not valid and he requested to approve the claim. The complainant has produced reputation letter of opposite party dated 05/05/2009. The said letter reads as under:- To Mr. Vikas S.N # 123, Malaprabha Blk NGV Complex Koramangala Bangalore-560 047. Dear Sir, Re: Accident to Vehicle No:KA 01 X 1876 on 20/03/2009- PolicyNo:423101/31/2009/17335-Insured: Mr. Vikas. S.N This has reference to your intimation letter reporting accident to your vehicle No.: KA 01 X 1876. On scrutiny of your claim papers, we noticed that as on the date of accident, i.e., 20/03/2009 insurance policy stands in the name of Mr.Vikas S.N and as per vehicle Certificate of Registration ownership of vehicle is in the name of Mr. Mare Goud. As per insurance policy terms, both Registration Certificate and Policy should be in the same name, otherwise the company shall have no liability in respect of loss or damage to the vehicle. Hence there is No Insurable Interest at the time of loss. We request to inform you that we are unable to consider the claim and the claim stands repudiated. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- DEPUTY MANAGER Sd/- 6. It appears that the only objection taken by the opposite parties in repudiating the claim is that, policy stands in the name of Vikas S.N who is none other than the son of registered owner of the vehicle. For this discrepancy or mistake the complainant cannot be held responsible. Because admittedly the vehicle stands in the name of Mare Goud in the RC records. Mare Goud is the registered owner of the vehicle. Before issuing policy the opposite parties definitely could have seen the RC book and the particulars of vehicle etc.,. Policy is rightly issued in respect of the vehicle No.KA 01 X 1876. The particulars of vehicle have been mentioned in the policy correctly. The opposite parties officials while issuing policy inadvertently written the name of Vikas S.N in the column of insured name. For the mistake of opposite party officials the complainant cannot suffer loss because it is the duty and obligation of the opposite party company to see the RC records of the party and issue the policy in the name of the person on whose name, the vehicle is registered. So under these circumstances, there is absolutely no reason or justifiable ground on the part of opposite party to repudiate the claim. More over Vikas S.N has no objection to allow the claim put up by his father Mare Goud and he has also given letter to the opposite party company on 14/05/2009. There is no question of putting another claim by Vikas S.N on the basis of policy. Once the claim put up by Mare Goud is settled. The vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle has been got repaired in the authorised service center of Bajaj. The complainants have produced bills and receipts of repairs. The total amount spent by them is Rs.16,714/-. The declared value of the vehicle is Rs.27,000/-. Therefore, the policy covers the period of accident. It is the duty and obligation of the opposite party company to allow the claim and pay the cost of repairs. The insurance company cannot take objection on technical grounds. Complainant herein being a consumer under the C.P Act, his interest deserves to be protected. The opposite parties have not appeared and contested the matter. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainants. The complainants have proved and established that they are entitled for the claim amount. It is just, fair and reasonable to order the opposite party to pay sum of Rs.16,714/-. The complainants have prayed for grant of compensation for mental agony and harassment etc.,. But on the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met in ordering the opposite party company to pay the cost of repairs. Therefore, grant of compensation is not considered. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents, it is a fit case to allow the complaint. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.16,714/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay interest at 6% p.a on that amount from the date of filing complaint till payment/realisation. 8. The complainants are also entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the present proceeding from the opposite party. 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT I concur the above findings. MEMBER rhr.