Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/170/2018

Smt Sujatha W/o Mallikarjuna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager,Oriental insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Thippeswamy.N

14 Feb 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:07/09/2018

DISPOSED      ON:14/02/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:170/2018

 

DATED: 14^th FEBRUARY 2019

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. Sujatha W/o Mallikarjuna Aged about 37 years, House Hold, R/o Challakere, Chitradurga Taluk.   (Rep by Sri.N. Thippeswamy, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Regional Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sub Regional Office , Challakere.   2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office #289/6 AM Ararde, Near Vidhyarthi Bhavan, C.G. Hospital Road, Davanagere.   3. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Opp., to KSRTC Sharada Complex, P.B. Road, Chitradurga.     (Rep by Sri. O.L. Gnanesh, Advocate for OPs)

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 OPs to pay Rs.10,12,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a and to grant such other reliefs.  

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, one Mallijarjuna. N.M was the registered owner of Mahindra Xylo BS IV Car bearing Registration No.KA-16 M-7279, who is the husband of the complainant.  The above said vehicle was insured with the OP company under policy No.472100/31/2015/1764.  It is further submitted that, the said Mallikarjuna. N.M was died leaving behind the complainant as his legal heir.  It is further submitted that, on 04.04.2015 at about 4-30 PM the said vehicle met with an accident near Dabaspet on NH-207 road due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle and fully damaged.  The Doddabelavangala Police have registered a case against the driver of the said vehicle u/Sec.279, 337 of IPC under Crime No.75/2015.  After the death of her husband, the policy was transferred in the name of complainant by the OPs.  After the accident, the complainant intimated the same to the OPs.  The OPs have appointed a surveyor, who visited the spot and conducted inspection about the damage caused to the vehicle.  The Surveyor took the photos of the damaged vehicle and suggested the complainant to leave the vehicle before Tumkur Showroom for repairs.  Accordingly, the complainant took the vehicle to the showroom by incurring toeing charges.  After that, the OPs deputed the surveyor to assess the damage after dismantling.  Thereafter, the surveyor has inspected the vehicle at said place and suggested to get the damaged vehicle for repair.  Soon after that, being a widow the complainant was unable to attend the showroom at Tumkur, she took the vehicle from the said showroom and shifted to Challakere Private Automobiles.  The said Automobile issued a service estimation to an extent of Rs.8,00,000/- and the complainant has requested the OPs to settle the claim of the damaged vehicle, but they never take any care for it.  After that on 23.0.3.2017, intentionally the OPs have sent a repudiation letter to the complainant stating that, the RC owner was passed away on 13.01.2014, the insurance policy was renewed from 18.03.2015 to 17.03.2016 in the name of Mr. Mallikarjuna. N.M and insurance stands in the name of complainant, it leads violation of policy condition.  Due to the said fact, the complainant has suffered much loss which cannot be compensated in any manner.  On 10.04.2017, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs to settle the claim but, the OPs have replied to the said notice stating that, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, they have issued a repudiation letter.  After that the complainant has submitted all the necessary documents before the RTO, Chitradurga for change of RC and other documents in her name.  By that time, the RTO authorities told that, without changing the insurance policy into her name, the documents concerned to the vehicle cannot be transferred.  Accordingly, the complainant has obtained policy from the OPs in her name.  But now the OPs have committed deficiency of service and violated the natural justice and due to that the complainant will be put to great loss and mental agony, which cannot be compensated by the OPs and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

 3.     After service of notice, the OPs appeared through Sri.O.L. Gnanesh, Advocate and filed version.  According to the version filed by the OPs, the allegations made in para 2 to 4 are admitted.  The averments made in para 5 and 6 are partly admitted and rest of the portion is denied as false.  The averments made in para 7 of the complaint that, the surveyor has inspected the vehicle and took the photos and suggested to get repair the damaged vehicle is true and remaining portion in para 7 are denied as false.  Further the averments stated in para 8 of the complaint that the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant and kept mum till 23.03.2017 is false and incorrect.  Further the averments that, the OPs have sent repudiation letter to the complainant is admitted.  Due to the repudiation letter sent by the OPs, the complainant has suffered much loss and mental agony are denied as false.  Further the OPs have stated that the complainant got transferred the insurance policy only in her name without transferring the registration certificate in to her name.  As per Sec.50(2)(a) of the MV Act, 1988, the registration certificate should transfer within the stipulated time after the death of owner. The complainant had not applied for transfer of registration certificate in her name though insurance policy only without transfer of registration certificate in her name though she got renewed the policy in her name from 18.03.2015 to 17.03.2016.  Further change of insurance policy only without transfer of registration certificate to her name does not give her any right in respect of the present claim, it is a clear violation of policy conditions.  The complainant with a malafide intention to cheat and to make unlawful gain, did not get transfer the registration certificate in her name and further the averments in para 10 are all false, incorrect and concocted by the complainant only for the sake of this complaint.  The complainant never approached before the registration authority for change of registration certificate and played a foul in order to get unlawful gain from the insurance policy.  The averments made in para 1 of the complaint are denied as false.  The OPs have not committed any deficiency of service in settling the claim.  The complainant has violated the conditions of the policy.  The OP company has given an opportunity to approach them for clarification, even though, the complainant turned deaf ear and filed this complaint in order to make unlawful gain.  The OPs have send a letter to the complainant to change necessary documents from the RTB but, the complainant has not filed any requisition before the RTO for change of necessary documents in her favour, hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

4.      Complainant herself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-7 were got marked and closed her side. OPs have examined one Sri.Govindaraju, General Manager as DW-1 and the documents produced by them are all Xerox copies, hence, the same were not marked as exhibits.  

 

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 OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling the insurance claim of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16      M-7279 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.      There is no dispute between the parties that, one Mallikarjun N.M was the registered owner of Mahindra Xylo BS IV Car bearing Registration No.KA-16 M-7279, who is the husband of the complainant.  The above said vehicle was insured with the OP company under policy No.472100/31/2015/1764 for a period from 18.03.2015 to 17.03.2016.  The said Mallikarjuna N.M was died on 01.03.2014.  After his death i.e., on 04.08.2014 at about 4-30 PM the said vehicle met with an accident near Dabaspet on NH-207 road due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle and fully damaged.  After that, the complainant being the legal heir of her deceased husband Mallikarjun, filed an application before the RTO, Chitradurga for change of vehicle document in her name.  By that time, the RTO told to bring the insurance policy stands in her name.  Accordingly, the complainant has filed the requisition before the insurance company for change of policy in her name.  Accordingly, the OPs have changed the policy of the said vehicle in her name.  After the accident, the complainant has intimated the same to the OPs, the OPs have appointed a surveyor for inspection and submit the report to the OPs.  The Surveyor has inspected and measured the cost of the repair and submitted the report to the OPs.  After receiving the report from the surveyor, the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant.  Further the OPs have given a repudiation letter to the complainant stating that, only the policy was changed in her name but, the documents still stands in the name of her husband and on that ground only the claim of the complainant was rejected.  The arguments addressed by the complainant that, the complainant has not violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the OPs have stated in their version that, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy u/Sec.50(2)(a) of the M.V Act, 1988.  But the complainant and the OPs have produced the copy of the policy before this Forum, that condition was not at all found in the policy produced by both the sides.  The OPs have taken a contention that, the documents have not been changed in the name of complainant, but the remaining averments are admitted.  As per the documents produced by the complainant, it clearly shows that, the complainant has not violated any conditions as stated by the OPs.  If the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant, she will be put to great loss and mental agony which cannot be compensated by the OPs.  The OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim of the complainant.  The documents produced by the complainant i.e., Motor Vehicles Inspection Report, in this report, the accident never occurred due to any technical problem.  So, on the date of accident, the policy stands in the name of complainant, when the policy was in force at the time of accident, it is the bounden duty of the OPs to settle the claim.  The ID value of the said vehicle is of Rs.5,98,000/- and the vehicle was fully damaged in an accident.  So, the complainant is entitled for the IDV of the said vehicle. 

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OPs.  There is no dispute between both the parties that, Mahindra Xylo BS IV Car bearing Registration No.KA-16 M-7279 was insured with the OP company under policy No.472100/31/2015/1764 for a period from 18.03.2015 to 17.03.2016.  The said vehicle was met with an accident on 04.04.2015 at about 4-30 PM near Dabaspet on NH 207 road.  There is no dispute that, the above said vehicle was fully damaged, but the OPs have taken a contention that, the complainant has changed the policy in to her name but, she did not tried to change the vehicle documents in her name after the death of her husband.  But as per the documents, the complainant had approached the RTO, Chitradurga for change of vehicle documents into her name, but the RTO told the complainant to obtain policy in her name first, then only got the right to change the vehicle documents.  Accordingly, after obtaining the policy from the OPs, the complainant has filed application before the RTO, Chitradurga for change of necessary documents in her name.  But in this case, the main defects as committed by the OPs is that, they have not settled the claim of the complainant on the ground that, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy u/Sec.50(2)(a) of the MV Act, 1988.  We have gone through the entire documents produced by the complainant and the OPs.  Whatever the repudiation made by the OPs are not sustainable under law.  When the policy was in force at the time of accident, the duty of the OPs is to settle the claim.  In this case, the vehicle was fully damaged, the ID value of the said vehicle is of Rs.5,98,000/-.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the above said value on a condition that the complainant has to handover the said vehicle to the OPs after collecting the entire amount from the OPs. 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 OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,98,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of accident i.e., from 04.04.2015 till realization.

 

Further it is ordered that, the OPs are 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 OPs are 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 14/02/2019 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:

PW-1:  PW-1: Sri.Govindaraju, General Manager by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	2 Postal receipts and acknowledgement
03	Ex-A-3:-	2 Postal Acknowledgements
04	Ex-A-4:-	Returned Postal cover
05	Ex-A-5:-	Legal Notice dated 10.04.2017
06	Ex-A-6:-	Reply notice dated 19.04.2017
07	Ex.A-7:-	Certificate of registration

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**