BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

C.C.No.161/2018

Date of filing: 10/12/2018

Date of disposal: 14/06/2019

P R E S E N T :-

- V/S –

JUDGEMENT

By Smt. Sharada. K. President.

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directed to pay the vehicle loss claim amount of Rs.5,20,000/- with 18% interest from the date of complaint till realization and pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the litigation and any other reliefs etc.,

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

          It is case of the complainant that, the complainant has purchased Maruti Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA-29/N-0695 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP/Insurance company bearing policy No.0000000004905809-01 for a period upto 07.09.2017 to 06.09.2018 and its IDV declared at Rs.5,20,000/- and further as per the terms and conditions of policy Ops are liable to pay compensation in case of complainant vehicle damages or loss any accident incidental case and further on dtd:15.07.2018 the said vehicle is driving by his driver Basavaraj Sunagad from Bilagi to Hubli in slow and in cautious manner, when the said vehicle was proceeding near to Kulageri cross at that time, vehicle suddenly caught with fire due to technical problem and vehicle was completely burned. Immediately, the complainant had lodged written complaint before the Kerur Police Station under its Cr.No.03/2018 on same date i.e. on 15.07.2018 and the same was also intimated to the OP/Insurance Company agent, who thereby conducted the spot survey by its officer persons.

          It is further contended that, the complainant submitted his claim form to the OP/Insurance Company alongwith all relevant documents connected to the claim settlement and demanded to grant the compensation amount of Rs.5,20,000/- towards value of IDV. The Ops after perusing the documents and issued a letter on dtd: 14.09.2018 to the complainant and demanded certain documents like EMI paid detail, petrol bill, income proof, IT return, towing bill, detail clarification of use of vehicle. After receiving the said notice, the complainant clarified the use of his vehicle, clarification from driver his statement, EMI documents, but in the mean time with respect to IT return and petrol bill documents is not furnished since it irrelevant to claim and same was intimated to Ops and further the complainant several time communicated to Ops in respect of claim, but Ops are one or in other aspect dragging the settlement of claim and demanding the irrelevant documents which is no ever concern for settlement of claim.  

          Finally, the complainant has got issued a legal notice through his Counsel on dtd: 29.09.2018, calling upon the OPs to pay compensation for loss of his vehicle in fire accidental and the said notice were duly served to the OPs and as such the OPs have given evasively replied to the said notice and demanded above said documents which are no were concern to claim purpose and further as per policy terms and conditions, the Ops are not settled the claim within time as prescribed by IRDA rules and as such the Ops have no intention to settle the claim and demanding irrelevant documents. Hence, due to the above said unfair attitude on part of Ops side, the complainant is put to inconvenience and hardship. Hence, having no alternative, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

3.        After issue of notice to the OP.No.1, the notice was duly served to the OP.No.1, but OP.No.1 has not appeared before this Forum. Hence, OP.No.1 is placed Ex-parte and OP.No.2 is appeared through his counsel, but he has neither filed written version nor put-forth any affidavit evidence in the above said complaint. Hence, written version of OP.No.2 taken as nil.

4.      In support of the claim in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced some documents, which are as under;

5.      On the other hand OP.No.1 has not filed any documents to the above said complaint.   

Now, on the basis of these facts, the following points that would arise for our consideration:

1. Whether the complainant has proved that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Op in repudiating the claim amount under the insurance policy?

2.  What order?

6.      Our findings on the above points are as fallows;

1. Point No.1 In the partly affirmative.    
2. As per final Order.

                      R E A S O N S

7.  POINT NO.1:-  We have perused the pleadings of complainant, evidence and documents placed on record and also arguments advanced by the complainant, it is evident that, there is no dispute in respect of the ownership of the vehicle and subsisting insurance policy and further the case of the complainant is that, since the vehicle was covered under the insurance policy, the vehicle bearing No.KA-29/
N-0695 and the policy valid from 07.09.2017 to 06.09.2018 with the IDV of Rs.5,20,000/- and further as per the terms and conditions of policy, the Ops are liable to pay compensation in case of complainant vehicle damages or loss any accident.

It is an important to note that, on dtd:15.07.2018 the said vehicle is driving by his driver Basavaraj Sunagad from Bilagi to Hubli near to Kulageri cross at that time, vehicle suddenly caught with fire due to technical problem and vehicle was completely burned. Immediately, the complainant had lodged written complaint before the Kerur Police Station under its Cr.No.03/2018 on the same day i.e. on 15.07.2018 and the same was also intimated to the OP/Insurance Company agent and further the complainant has filed claim before the OP/Insurance Co.  alongwith all relevant documents and demanded to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,20,000/- towards IDV of the above said vehicle and further the OP has verifying all documents and informed to the complainant vide letter dtd: 14.09.2018 and demanded some documents like EMI paid detail, petrol bill, income proof, IT return, towing bill, detail clarification of use of vehicle. After receiving the said notice, the complainant clarified the use of his vehicle, clarification from his driver statement, EMI documents, but in the mean time with respect to IT return and petrol bill documents is not furnished since it is irrelevant to claim and same was intimated to the Ops and further the complainant several time approached and requested to Ops in respect of claim, but till today the OP/Insurance company did not settle the claim and demanding the irrelevant documents which is no ever concern for settlement of claim, this act of the Ops, it amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

      So in the light of these admitted facts, the only point that would arise for our consideration is ‘whether the OP is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and whether it amounts to deficiency in service on its part?     After careful going through the contention of complainant as alleged in the complaint that, OP-Insurance company has not settle the claim of the complainant and further the OP/Insurance company has issued reply notice on dtd:23.10.2018 and demanded the above said documents which are no were concern to claim purpose, though the complainant is a poor and he is unable to bear repair charges of the damaged vehicle, because the said vehicle was completely burn. Hence, complainant has claimed compensation amount of Rs.5,20,000/- towards IDV of the vehicle, but the OPs again and again insisting to submit the clarification of use of vehicle, but complainant clarified the use of vehicle, clarification from his driver statement, EMI documents, but in the mean time with respect to IT return and petrol bill documents are not furnished since it is irrelevant to claim and the same was intimated to Ops and it is crystal clear that, the OP’s intention is not to settle the claim and drag the matter on one or other reason by issuing such letters. Therefore this act of the OPs apparently and prima-facia shows that, they are intending to avoid the claim of complainant on one or the other reason they are dragging the matter, though the insured-complainant has paid huge premium amount, it is nothing but a harassment to the complainant when his vehicle insured with the insurance company, is it not a duty of the insurer to indemnify the loss caused to the vehicle by settling the claim.  Therefore in our considered view, this act of the Ops, it amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by demanding unnecessary to produce irrelevant/immaterial documents. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the contention of the OP taken in reply notice has no merit and not acceptable. Mere denial of the complaint allegations is not sufficient to hold that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as the complainant has already filed his claim application along with all relevant documents long back and the OPs have not settled the claim and unnecessarily dragging the matter and also intending not to settle the claim of the complainant which amounts to violation of term and conditions of the insurance policy as per the IRDA Rules. Under these circumstances, the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not settling the claim of the complainant.

Therefore, in our considered opinion that, the complainant’s vehicle has been completely burn due to technical problem and the insurance policy was in force at the time of incident and the complainant has paid the premium for it, hence it would be just and proper to award the compensation amount as per IDV value of the vehicle of Rs. 5,20,000/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of repudiation, it would be meet ends of justice. Accordingly we answer this point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

The complaint is hereby partly allowed with costs.

The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- towards IDV of the vehicle with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation to the complainant towards damages within 30 days, failing to which OPs are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.

          The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/-towards costs of the proceedings.

Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this  14^th day of June, 2019).