Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/78/2019

S.Murali.Son of Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Zonal officer M/s.Chola General Insurance co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.G.Anbarasu

27 May 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :26.04.2019    Date of disposal               :27.05.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                   PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                         :PRESIDENT

                                         TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.78/2019

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 27^th   DAY OF MAY 2022

 

S. Murali,

Son of Srinivasan,

NO.11/45, 47, Periya street,

Kezhaikondaiyar Karapakkam, Veppampattu,

Chennai, Thiruvallur-602 024.

                                                                                                           .. Complainant.                                                                          ..Vs..

 

1.  The Zonal Officer,

Chola Ms. General Insurance Co.Ltd,

Dare House, II floor,

No.2, NSC Bose Road,

Chennai-600 001.

 

2.  The Managar,

Chola Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Ambattur branch,

No.467, MTH Road,

Ambattur, Chennai.                                                                      ..  Opposite parties.

 

 Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. V.G. Anbarasu, and 4 another,

Counsel for   opposite parties                   : M/s.M.B. Gopalan Associates and 2

                                                                      another

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to directing the Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,58,080/- towards the vehicle damage in the accident as per the policy issued by the insurance company along the subsequent nominal rate of interest from the date of fire accident till the date of filing the complaint and also subsequent interest till the date of realization of the amount and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and torture, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for negligence, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the delay in payment of claim amount in time, a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- for loss of interest and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he is the owner of the Mahindra, Tourister model van, bearing registration No. TN-12-3621, the same was purchased by him on 22.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and the above said vehicle was insured with the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.6,58,080/- and he has paid a sum of Rs.26,333/- as insurance premium to the 2^nd opposite party for the period from 20.10.2016 to 19.10.2017, vide policy NO.3373/00472937/000/00 and customer code:1021360389640001.  The complainant submitted that on 20.05.2017 at about 3.30 a.m., when his driver S.Senthil Kumar was driving the vehicle bearing registration NO. TN-12-3621 at near Kattamedu, N.H. road, Krishnagiri to Salem, the vehicle was suddenly fell down in the dig of the left side, as a result, the persons who was travelled in the van has sustained multiple injuries, further his van also was badly damaged.  The complainant submitted that immediately after the accident he intimated the same to the 2^nd opposite party over phone and in person.  Thereafter, he has lifted his vehicle from the dig with the help of Crance and shifted same to S.R.Body Tinkering works at Poonamalle for which he has spent a sum of Rs.7,200/- for lifting charges and sum of Rs.13,000/- for transporting charges, totaling in all a sum of Rs.20,200/- paid to Sri Siva Sakthi Crane Service at Dharmapuri. The complainant submitted that the 2^nd opposite parties surveyor also has inspected the damaged vehicle at S.R. Body tinkering works, Parivakkam, Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056 and has given quotation for a sum of Rs.6,61,450/- to repair the vehicle, thereafter he has not turned up and has not given any proper reply to him. The complainant submitted that he has insured his vehicle with the 2^nd opposite party and paid sufficient premium also to them.  The complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party has not paid any claim amount to him,  in the above stated circumstances his vehicle was in ideal for the past 22 months in the mechanic shed, as such the same has caused heavy loss a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to him.  The complainant counsel issued a legal notice to opposite parties on 01.10.2018 and the same was received by them,  but they failed and neglected to settle the claim amount and has not given any reply to his legal notice. Hence the complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION  FILED BY OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The complainant insured his Mahendra Tourister model VanTN-12-3621 under Motor Policy NO.3373/00472937 for the period 20.10.2016 to 19.10.2017 for a seating capacity of 11 persons (including driver).  As per the RC it is found that the vehicle was registered to carry only 13 persons in all.  The policy does not cover use of the Vehicle contrary to Motor Vehicles Act and any such use would be breach of Policy. A claim was made for damage to the vehicle in accident on 20.05.207 from the information and documents it was found that the vehicle was found that the vehicle was overloaded and the driver being unable to control the vehicle drove it into a pit causing damage.  The vehicle was found to be carrying 16 passengers which is in excess of the capacity for which it was registered as well as insured by the policy.  Though Surveyor was appointed and the loss was assessed a Rs.2,07,255/- as per quantum covered by the policy, since there was fundamental breach by excess carriage of passengers the opposite parties denied the liability for the claim on the ground of breach of ‘Limitation as to use’ Clause in the policy by letter dated:04.10.2017. The various reliefs sought are not sustainable in law or on facts.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

 Complainant had filed proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to A9 were marked on the complainant side.  The Opposite party filed proof affidavit and  Ex.B1 to B5 were marked on the opposite party side.   

4. Point No.1:-

                   The complainant who is the owner of Mahindra Tourister model van bearing Reg. No TN 12 3621 which was purchased on 22.07.2013 was insured with the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.6,58,080/-  and he has paid premium of Rs. 26,333/- for the period from 20.10.2016 to 19.10.2017.  These facts were not disputed by the opposite party. Admittedly the vehicle met with an accident on 20.05.2017 at 3.30am and as per the Ex.B3, FIR the vehicle fall in a pit near the road side due to rash and negligent driving of one Senthil Kumar who is driver of the vehicle and as per the FIR at the time of accident 16 persons were travelling in the vehicle. The complainant alleged that he has spent
Totally Rs. 20,200/- for lifting and shifting the vehicle to the workshop at Chennai and the 2^nd opposite party surveyor assessed the damaged at SR body Tinkering works Poonamamalle and gave a quotation for Rs.6,61,450/- to repair the vehicle and since the vehicle was insured with 2^nd opposite party,  the 2^nd Opposite party is duty bound to pay the repair charges but, when a request was made there was no response from the opposite party and even for legal notice which was received by the opposite party there was no reply and the amount was also not settled. Hence the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not responding to the claim for the damage of vehicle and hence  claimed Rs.6,58,080/- towards the vehicle damage and further claimed Rs.20 lakhs in total under various heads.

          5. The opposite party mainly contended that from the documents submitted by the complainant it was found that the vehicle was carrying 16 passengers at the time of accident which in excess of capacity for which it was registered and insured.  As per RC the seating capacity is 13 persons as per policy the seating capacity is 11 persons (Including Driver).  Therefore,  the policy does not cover use of the vehicle contrary to the motor vehicles act and hence the opposite party by letter dated 04.10.2017  repudiated the liability. But,  the complainant has suppressed the same and filed this complaint vexacitiously. Therefore the opposite party contended that there is no deficiency in service. And further contended the complainant without repairing the vehicle cannot claim on the basis of estimate alone.  Even in Ex.A1 filed by the complainant the RC shows seating capacity of 13 persons in Ex.A2 policy the seating capacity is 11 persons including driver.  As per Ex.A3 and B3 FIR 16 persons travelled at the time of accident.  In Ex.B2 the claim form submitted by the complainant it is found that 16 persons were travelling in the vehicle.  Therefore it is evident that there is over loading of the vehicle by carrying more number of passengers and which is clear breach of policy conditions.  And hence the claim was rightly rejected by the opposite party which was also intimated to the complainant under Ex.B5 which was sent by the registered post.  But the complainant has suppressed the repudiation letter and filed this complaint. The contention of the complainant that he has not received Ex.B5 is without any proof.  Though the complainant has filed the quotation and estimate for the vehicle damage no bills in support of the estimate was filed by the complainant though it is alleged in the complaint that the vehicle was kept ideal in the mechanic shed for about 22 months without repair and thereby there was loss to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- and further loss of Rs. 1,80,000/- by way of interest there is no documentary proof filed for the same.  The opposite party relied upon the decision reported in 2011 SCC Online NCDRC 539:, Dated:28.11.2011 and contended that when there is violation of conditions of insurance policy the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was rightly done.    The opposite party also relied upon  a citation reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases Page 451:, Where also a similar view was taken with regard to  the conditions mentioned in the policy. Hence for the above said reasons it is found that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party with regard to the claim raised by the complainant and Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

6. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties hence, the complainant is not entitled for Rs.6,58,080/-  towards vehicle damage and further is not entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,00,000/- towards negligence and further the complainant is not entitled for the other reliefs prayed in the complaint. Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27^th day of May 2022

 

MEMBER – I                                                                         PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	22.07.2013	Copy of the RC book of the belongs to the complainant
Ex.A2	20.10.206	Copy of the Insurance
Ex.A3	21.05.2017	Copy of FIR.
Ex.A4	01.10.2018	Advocate notice sent to the respondents
Ex.A5		Postal acknowledgements
Ex.A6	20.05.2017	Bill for the towing charges
Ex.A7	07.06.2017	Estimate for repair charges
Ex.A8		News paper report regarding the accident
Ex.A9		Photo of the damaged vehicle.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1		Policy schedule with terms and conditions
Ex.B2		Claim form
Ex.B3	21.05.2017	Copy of FIR.
Ex.B4	08.08.2017	Survey report.
Ex.B5	04.10.2017	Claim denial letter

 

MEMBER – I                                                                         PRESIDENT