Karnataka

Kolar

CC/68/2017

Sri.S.K.Basavaraju - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Shriram General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.N.Srinath

10 May 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 09/10/2017

Date of Order: 10/05/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 10^th DAY OF MAY 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 68 OF 2017

Sri. S.K.Basavaraju,

S/o. S.J.Krishnappa,

Aged About 41 Years,

R/at: Master Muniyappa

Compound, 3^rd Cross,

Adarshanagar, Malur Town,

Kolar District.                                                        ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. T.V. Ramesh & P.N.Srinath, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

The Shriram General Insurance

Company Limited, 3^rd Floor,

S & S Corner Building,

Opp: Bowring & Lady Curzon

Hospital, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore-01.

(Rep. by Sri. J.Simon, Advocate)                              …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to allow the complaint by directing the OP to pay damages of Rs.4,82,800/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, he is the RC owner of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. TN-70-H-9385.  The said lorry was seized by the OP from its previous RC owner namely N.Naveen Kumar as he has not paid regular loan installments and thereafter the said vehicle was notified for auction and the complainant participated in the auction and bid the said vehicle for Rs.15,00,000/- which includes insurance premium.  Thereafter complainant has hypothecated the vehicle for Rs.12,00,000/- with Shriram Automall India Limited which is a sister concern of OP and paid the installments.  On 24.01.2014 the said Shriram Automall India Limited delivered the possession of the vehicle to him.  On 07.06.2016 the complainant parked the said vehicle near Jayashankar’s bricks factory, Malur Town and on the same day night some miscreants had stolen the said vehicle and he has lodged complaint on 08.06.2014 with the Malur police and the same was registered on 27.10.2014.  The complainant after taking delivery of the vehicle has changed all the old ten tyres by paying Rs.2,36,000/-.  The complainant insured the said vehicle with the OP and the policy was valid from 18.12.2013 to 17.12.2014.  The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.19,31,200/-.  The vehicle was road worthy condition.  On 08.06.2014 the complainant intimated the theft of the vehicle to the OP.  The Malur Police could not able to trace the vehicle and filed ‘C’ report on 19.12.2015 in C.No.11/2015.  The worth of the vehicle is around Rs.25,00,000/- and since the vehicle’s IDV is Rs.19,31,200/- the OP has to pay the balance of Rs.4,82,800/-.  The said Srhiram Automall India Limited has received a sum of Rs.16,17,600/- in all and prays to allow the complaint.

 

03.   The OP appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be rejected in lemine.  This OP has denied that, there was a notification for auction and so also denied the participation of the complainant in the bid on 22.01.2014 and has no knowledge about the same.  And also denied about the replacement of the new tyres by paying Rs.2,36,000/-.  The OP has admitted about the insurance policy and the IDV.  The OP has denied the entire averments of para-5 & 6 of the complaint and there is no cause of auction.  This OP specifically contended that, the claim is not maintainable as the claim repudiated by the complainant and it has already been settled in full and final settlement with due consent of the complainant and the claim was settled with full satisfaction of the complainant voluntarily and agreed the sum after due discussion.  The financier of the insured vehicle is not made as a party to the complaint.  The vehicle was insured and the declared value of Rs.19,31,200/- is based on the proposal submitted by the complainant.  The claim was repudiated for non-compliance of the required documents and after sending due notice and reminders and after repudiation the complainant has produced required documents and thereafter they have settled the claim for Rs.14,48,400/- and the complainant has agreed voluntarily and given consent letter.  After the OP paid Rs.14,48,000/- to the loan account and settled the claim on non-standard basis as there was delay of 142 days in FIR and 172 days delay in intimation to the company.  The OP has also contended that, at the time of theft, the complainant while giving police complaint has stated that, the value of the vehicle was Rs.6,00,000/-, but while taking insurance the complainant has stated IDV as Rs.19,31,000/- for the second hand vehicle to make gain under the policy with malafied intention.  The complainant has made false allegations against the OP to get benefits from the claim amount and praying the Forum to reject the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

04.   The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief with the following documents:-

 (i) Copy of FIR marked as Exhibit C-1

(ii) Charge sheet marked as Exhibit.C.2

(iii) Statement issued by the OP marked as Exhibit.P.3

(iv) Down Payment Receipts as Exhibits-P.4 & P.5

(v) Loan Receipt as Exhibit.P.6, P.7 & P.8.

(vi) Policy Copy issued by OP as Ex.P.9, P.7, P.8

(vii) Policy Copy issued by OP as Ex.P.9,

(viii) Registration A.D. as Ex.P.10

(ix) R.C. as Ex.P.11

(x) Tyres purchased receipts as Ex.P.12 to P.15.

(xi) Legal Notice as Ex.P.16,

(xii) Postal Receipt as Ex.P.17,

(xiii) Acknowledgement as Ex.P.18.

 

05.   One Sri. Peeyush Jain, S/o. Rajendra Jain, Legal Officer of OP has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief along with four documents as follows:-

(i) Consent Letter marked as Annexure ‘A’

(ii) Claim Discharge Cum Satisfaction Voucher, marked as Annexure ‘B’

(iii) Police Complaint & FIR marked as Annexure ‘c”.

(iv) Insurance Policy marked as Annexure ‘D’.

 

06.   Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.  Heard arguments of both side.

 

07.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

POINT NO.1:- Whether the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable?

 

POINT NO.2:- What order?

 

08.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Negative

POINT (2):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

09.   POINT (1):-      We perused the complaint, version, evidence and documents relied by the parties.  It is no doubt and true that, the complainant is the registered owner of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. TN-70-H-9385 as per Ex.P.11 and the said lorry was thefted on 08.06.2014 at the Malur police jurisdiction as per Ex.C.1.

 

10.   It is pertinent to state here that, on perusal of the complaint and version, the complainant has suppressed the real material facts with respect to the lodging of the complaint, intimation to the OP and so also settlement made by the parties with regard to the claim of the theft of the complainant’s alleged vehicle and the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hand and it is not just and necessary to go through detail in the matter.

 

 

11.   On perusal of Exhibit-C.1 wherein the complainant lodged the complaint on 27.10.2014 though the alleged theft was took place on 08.06.2014.  After lodging the complaint the police have not able to trace the thefted vehicle and ‘C’ report has been filed as per Ex.C.2.

 

12.   Further it is relevant to state here that, the OP has produced Annexure - ‘A’ i.e., consent letter and on perusal of the said letter the complainant has agreed and voluntarily accepted a sum of Rs.14,48,400/- and he will never raise any issue and settled the matter and the complainant put his signature to the said consent letter as settlement of his claim towards his thefted Lorry and so also the complainant put his signature to Annexure-B i.e., Claim Discharge-Cum-Satisfaction Voucher voluntarily as fully satisfied with full and final settlement with regard to his claim and there is no any allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or undue advantage in the complaint.

 

13.   The complainant by suppressing the material facts has filed this fictitious complaint though the complainant has settled the dispute with the OP in full and final settlement of the claim of his thefted vehicle and put his signature to Annexure-A voluntarily such being so the complainant is not entitled for claims as sought in the complaint. 

 

14.   Hence as discussed above the said complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed in lemine.  Accordingly, we answer this point is in the Negative.

 

POINT (3):-

15.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief as prayed by him and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- as not maintainable.

02.   The complainant is directed to pay the said cost to the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 10^th DAY OF MAY 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT