Date of Filing:14.05.2009<br /> Date of Order:17.09.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> DATED: 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1114 OF 2009<br /> <br /> R. Mahesh,<br /> S/o Rangegowda, <br /> R/at No.2512, II Stage,<br /> ‘D’ Block, Rajajinagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 010. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Regional Manager,<br /> The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,<br /> Division Office-10,<br /> No. 256, 10th Cross, 5th Main,<br /> Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming Rs. 1,18,616/- with interest.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant is the owner of passenger Autorickshaw bearing No. KA-02 B-4150 and all the entries in the R.T.O records stand in his name. On 21/09/2008 the above Autorickshaw met with an accident at Sapthagiri Layout main road, Hosakerehalli, BSK III Stage, Bangalore. The insurance was in force. The complainant immediately intimated the same to the opposite party. The opposite party deputed the surveyor and after inspection of the vehicle, as per the advise of the opposite party and the Autorickshaw was sent to the garage to assess the cost of the repairs to the said vehicle. The complainant got assessed the repairs to be carried to the Autorickshaw through M/s Pramod Motors, who have estimated the amount as Rs. 10,316/- towards the cost of spare parts required to be replaced and labour charges of Rs.8,300/- for repairing the Autorickshaw. The complainant furnished the documents along with claim form to the opposite party requesting to settle the claim to enable and to get the repairs carried out to the Autorickshaw. After receiving all the required particulars from him regarding the estimate of repairs to the Autorickshaw, the opposite party was bound to settle the claim made by the complainant. The opposite party vide its letter dated 01/04/2009 has repudiated the claim on untenable ground. The complainant lodged complaint to the concerned police and intimated the same to the opposite party. The policy was in force on the date of accident. After receipt of the documents, the opposite party has repudiated the claim made by the complainant. Thus, the opposite party has caused deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Notice was served. In spite of service of notice, the opposite party has not appeared before this Forum. Defense version also not sent by post. Therefore, the opposite party has been placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of complaint filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us following points arise for consideration:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the claim amount?<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant has produced repudiation letter of opposite party on 01/04/2009. It is better to reproduce the entire letter of the opposite party for better appreciation of the facts of the case. <br /> Ref: 072400/Mot.CI./001/08 Dated:1/4/2009<br /> Sri. R. Mahesh,<br /> No. 2512, 2nd Stage, BY R.P.A.D.<br /> “D” Block, Rajajinagar,<br /> BANGALORE-560 010.<br /> Phone: 9880198746. <br /> <br /> Dear Sir,<br /> <br /> Sub: Your claim for accident to vehicle No. KA 02 B 4150 Bajaj Autorickshaw – Policy No. 072400/31/07/00006285 – Policy Period: 3/11/2007 top 2/11/2008 – Date of accident: 21/9/2008 – Claim No.71/2008.<br /> <br /> This has reference to the claim preferred by you regarding accident to your above vehicle insured with us.<br /> On perusal of the claim papers, F.I.R, Charge Sheet etc., we observe that at the time of accident your vehicle has carried 6 + 1 passengers. Among the passengers, Sampangamma aged 80 years has died due to the accident and other passengers have sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the vehicle, Sri. B. Ravi has been charge sheeted for his rash and negligent driving causing the death of above person. As per the permit, the seating capacity of the vehicle is only, 3 + 1 whereas the vehicle has carried more than the prescribed limit and thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy.<br /> As there is clear violation of the permit, the claim preferred by you is repudiated which may please be noted. <br /> Thanking you,<br /> Yours faithfully,<br /> for UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> (S.V. VENKATESH MURTHY)<br /> SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER.<br /> <br /> So as per this repudiation letter it is clear that as per the claim papers, FIR and charge sheet the Autorickshaw was carrying 6 + 1 passengers and one passenger died in the accident and other passengers had sustained injuries. As per the permit the sitting capacity of the vehicle was only 3 + 1. Therefore, the vehicle had carried more than prescribed limit and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. So under these circumstances, the opposite party had repudiated the claim. No fault could be found in the repudiation of the claim. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party in this case cannot be termed as a deficiency in service. Therefore, the question of allowing complaint does not arise. The complainant has not produced any documents pertaining to the vehicle. He has not produced RC book and DL. He has also not produced FIR and Charge sheet copies. The complainant has not produced the repair bills and vouchers to show that he has spent amount for repairs. The complainant has not produced survey report or any assessment of damage report by the mechanic. Even the complainant has not produced copy of the insurance policy to show that the repudiation of the claim is illegal. Therefore, in the absence of any documents, it is very difficult to hold that opposite party has committed deficiency in rendering the service. The complainant has not produced or establishing by producing documents that he has not violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has produced a copy of judgment of Hon’ble State Commission rendered in Appeal No.2550/2007. By going through that judgment that was a case in respect of vehicle was being used as contract carriage as against stage carriage for which the bus had been permitted to use. Under those circumstances, the insurance company totally had no reasons to reject the claim of the complainant and directed to pay the claim on standard basis. I am of the opinion that the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission cannot be made use to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the matter was not in respect of contract carriage or stage carriage, the present case pertains to carrying passengers more than the prescribed limit in the vehicle and thereby there was a violation of terms and conditions of policy. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission will not help the complainant in the present case to put up his claim. So, taking any view of the matter there is no merit in the complaint and it deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr.,