Date of filing:  28.11.2017

Date of Disposal: 10.04.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,     BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.3080/2017

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Kavitha D.G,

W/o. Krishnamurthy.G,

Aged About 56 Years,

Residing at: No.5,

Lalajilayout, Lakkasandra,

(Rep by Sri. Kamalji, Advocate)

1) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Company Limited,

Regd. Office situated at:

GE Plaza, Airport Road,

Yerwada, Pune-411006.

(Rep. by Sri.Manoj Kumar.M.R, Advocate)

2) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Company Limited, Golden Heights,

(Rep. by Sri.Manoj Kumar.M.R, Advocate)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay the repair charges in respect of her vehicle for a sum of Rs.3,08,670/- and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

02.    It is not in dispute that, the complainant is the owner of Toyota INNOVA vehicle bearing registration No. KA-01-MK-0362 and she had insured the said vehicle with the opposite party for the period from 17.04.2017 to 16.04.2018.  Further it is not in dispute that, opposite party No.1 is the private general insurance company limited and opposite party No.2 is the branch office of opposite party No.1 and it has dealt the claim of the complainant.  Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant has intimated about the damage caused to the vehicle to opposite party and in-turn the representative of opposite party had inspected the vehicle at Car Mechs, Koramangala, Bangalore and had given the initial estimation of quotation for Rs.3,08,670/- for the repair works to be done. 

03.    Further since opposite parties did not grant the repair charges the complainant got issued notice to the opposite party and in-turn opposite party had also given reply.  Further it is not in dispute that, the opposite party had repudiated the claim on the ground that, complainant has concealed/suppressed with regard to the No Claim Bonus (NCB) i.e., the complainant had obtained claim from the previous policy insurer.

04.    It is the further case of the complainant that, the Car Mechs, Koramangala, has raised estimation on 19.08.2017 for repairing the vehicle which was taken from Nandi Toyota for Rs.7,56,125=56.  Further the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence the present complaint came to be filed.

05.    It is the further case of the opposite parties that, they were unaware of the incident took place as alleged by the complainant.  Further since the complainant has supressed the claim taken in the previous policy and had obtained No Claim Bonus (NCB) the complainant is not entitle for any compensation.  Further after the policy been taken on 29.05.2017 it was requested the complainant to pay the NCB amount of Rs.5,907/-.  In-spite of that, the complainant did not make good the same.  Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.

06.    To prove the case, the complainant has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief and produced documents.  The Authorized Signatory of opposite party (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence and has got marked EX.R.1 to R.13 & EX.R.13(a) documents.

07     Counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 has filed written arguments.

08.    The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

  (1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

  (2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the 

      relief sought ?

      (3) What order ?

09.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

Point No.1 & 2 :  Are in negative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following:-

REASONS

10.    POINT NO.1 & 2:-  In order to avoid the repetition of facts and as both the points are interconnected to one another, those are taken up together for discussion.

11.    The complainant and the Authorized Signatory of opposite parties have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief. 

12.    The complainant is the owner of Toyota INNOVA vehicle registration No. KA-01-MK-0362.  The complainant had obtained private car Package Policy from opposite party for the period from 17.04.2017 to 16.04.2018.  According to PW.1 due to heavy rain on 14^th evening to till 15^th early morning of August 2017 the above vehicle was damaged due to heavy rain and water entered the above said vehicle.  Due to this the complainant’s vehicle was damaged and the complainant had registered an accident claim complaint on 16.08.2017 through customer care and it was intimated to opposite party. 

13.    Further the opposite party representative had estimated the repair charges of Rs.3,08,670/- and in support of the estimation the complainant has produced the estimate given by Car Mechs, Koramangala, Bangalore.  Further the complainant has also produced the estimation given by Nandi Toyota of Rs.7,56,125=56.  EX.R.4 is the copy of the claim form submitted by the complainant before opposite party.

14.    The only contention urged by the learned counsel for opposite parties that, since the complainant had supressed with regard to the previous claim made and obtained the facility of No Claim Bonus (NCB), the complainant is not entitled for the claim.  EX.R.3 is the copy of the letter dated: 29.05.22017 issued by opposite party to the complainant, in which the complainant was requested to pay No Claim Bonus amount of Rs.5,907/- within 07 days.  Even in-spite of that, the complainant did not make good the same.  EX.R.1 is the copy of the policy.  EX.R.2 is the particulars of the policy.  EX.R.7 is the policy in detail. 

15.    The complainant has also produced the policy issued by the opposite parties.  On perusal of the policy document produced by the complainant in Column No.17 it appears that, the complainant had obtained 25% of No Claim Bonus.  The same appears in the policy document produced by the opposite party also.  Hence it is seriously contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that, the complainant is not entitle for any claim.

16.    In support of the contention counsel for opposite parties relies the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 428 between United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. M.K.J. Corporation.  In the said case the insurer had not incorporated the recommendations made by the Tariff Advisory Committee which was statutory in character and binding on the insurer in the policy.  Therefore the Apex Court had held that, the insurer did not disclose the material fact in the insurance policy and the insurer made liable to pay the compensation.  Further counsel relies the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No.1255 OF 2009 between Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited & Another Vs. Gulzari Singh.  In the said case the insured had supressed the No Claim Bonus is concerned.  The District Forum has dismissed the claim of the complainant and the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission innocently had given discount so far as No Claim Bonus is concerned and granted compensation for the remaining amount.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, had set-aside the order of Hon’ble State Commission and held that, the State Commission had violated the settled principle of law and had confirmed the order of District Forum, thereby dismissed the claim of the complainant.  The facts of the case in hand and the facts of the case rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, are similar and the same is applicable to the facts of the case in hand.  Hence any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties cannot be inferred and the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service as alleged against the opposite parties.  Hence the complainant is not entitle for the claim made.  Accordingly we answer point No.1 & 2 are in negative.

17.    POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 10^th Day of April, 2023)                                             

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

Smt. Kavitha D.G, the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.

Documents submitted by the complainant side:

1. Private Car Package policy book
2. Nandi Toyota Estimate
3. Estimate of Car Mechs
4. Letter dt.08.12.2017, 19.12.201711.09.2017 with postal receipt and acknowledgment
5. Legal notice dt.03.10.2017
6. Agricultural land documents/
7. Private Car Package Policy Schedule
8. Copy of R.C. of the subject vehicle

Witness examined for the opposite party side:   

Smt. Prathibha S, Authorized Signatory of opposite party No.2 (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. Copy of the policy- EX.R.1.

2. Copy of the policy terms & conditions – EX.R.2

3. Copy of letter dt.29.05.2017 – EX.R.3

4. Claim form dt.28.08.2017 – EX.R.4

5. Copy of RC  - EX.R.5

6. Copy of DL – EX.R.6

7. Copy of insurance policy – EX.R.7

8. Estimate of Car Mechs dt.28.08.2017 – EX.R.8

9. Survey Report dt.03.09.2017- EX.R.9

10. Letter dt.11.09.2017 – EX.R.10

11. Letter dt.11.09.2017 – EX.R.11

12. Letter dt.08.12.2017 of OP to complainant a/w postal receipt – EX.R.12

13. Postal acknowledgment

14. Repudiation Letter dt.19.12.2017 EX.R.13

15. Postal acknowledgment – EX.R.13(a).

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•