BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 30^th DAY OF AUGUST 2021

O R D E R

Sri S.L.Patil, President

The complainant filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay the IDV amount of Rs.95,000/- along with 18% interest p.a. from the date of vehicle damaged in accident till realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental, physical suffering etc., and to grant of such other reliefs.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

  The complainant submits that OP No.1 is the policy issuing centre represented by Branch Manager who is working under the instructions of the OP No.2.  Further complainant submits that he a registered owner of LMV bearing registration No.KA-41-M-6292, Maruti Suzuki, model and variant – alto/BS-LXI, colour-Silk silver, manufacturing year- March 2008, Chassis No.MA3EYD81501150426, Engine No.F8DN1226261 (Car) and he is using the said vehicle for own purpose and the said vehicle has been insured with Reliance General Insurance i.e. OP vide Reliance Private Car Package Police Schedule bearing Policy No.140821923110014392 and the said policy was in force from 25^th June, 2019 to 24^th June, 2020 and paid premium amount of Rs.3,942/- including tax.  All the documents pertaining to the said vehicle stands in his name and the said vehicle free from any kind of hypothecation. 

Complainant further submits that on 5^th May, 2020 at about 08.45 AM, he was proceeding in the said vehicle from his hometown i.e. Makanahalli Village, Dudda Hobli, Hassan Taluk to visit his another landed property situated at in different place.  While he drove the car as usual all of sudden one cattle crossed the road from his right side to left side i.e. west and east side, due to unexpected crossing of the cattle, he tried to turn little right and to pass it.  However, the complainant lost his control and turn the steering to right side and then his car hit to the tree then hit to another tree and caused damage to his car in front and back side.  Further complainant submits that he immediately tried to contact the customer care of OPs insurance company but he was unable to contact the concerned employee due to limited staff.  After several attempts, the complainant was succeeded to obtain the contact number of Branch Surveyor named Mr.Kantharaju of OPs Insurance company through aged and he explained the whole incident by telephone to the said Surveyor for which, the said surveyor asked him to take the pictures of the place of occurrence and damaged vehicle due to accident and to bring the vehicle next day to Hassan city. Accordingly, the complainant captured the pictures and sent to the surveyor through whatsapp and took the car by towing to M/s Lakshmi Venkateshwara Motors Pvt. Ltd., Hassan for service.  Further complainant submits that after inspection of his car, they have given a letter of Estimation of damages of vehicle estimating the bill which will be more than the value of his car. Then he given representation explaining the incident to the insurance company by mail and claimed own damages of Rs.95,000/- as per IDV for total loss estimated by the said service centre. 

Further complainant submits that in response to mail representation on 22.05.2020, the OPs company surveyor named Mr.Ravikumar attached to the said insurance company had visited to the place of occurrence for verification and asked the complainant to give explanation in writing about the incident, accordingly he given.  After due verification, he forwarded the report to the OPs insurance company.  On the complainant’s enquiry with the concerned person, he came to know that his claim for the vehicle damage is repudiated by the OPs insurance company by assigning a reason that, the damage to his car was not due to the accident but self created version of him.  The copy of letter of repudiation dated 27.06.2020. Further complainant submits that the OPs insurance company refused to settle the claim without valid reason and adjudicated themselves without conducting proper verification and without properly understood his explanations about the accident.  Since, the complainant is the owner of the said vehicle, the policy was in force though he forwarded all the relevant documents to the OPs, they have without application of judicial mind has repudiated his claim of own damage (OD) for the insured vehicle. 

Further complainant submits that the OPs mechanically and without properly appreciate the incident thereby made good the damage to the insured vehicle they wrongly repudiate the claim judging on their own cause and without giving valid reason.  Beside the OPs insurance company failed to conduct any proper enquiry and failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of the policy issued in his favour after collecting necessary premium from time to time i.e. Reliance Private Car Package Policy Schedule issued by them. This clearly indicates that the OPs have no intention of pay the aforementioned IDV/OD amount to the complainant, but only to escape from the liability from his which clearly shows that the acts of the OPs is nothing sort of deficiency of service.  Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to OPs on 30.09.2020 calling upon to pay the IDV/OD amount, OPs neither pay the amount nor replied to the notice.  The cause of action for the above complaint arose on the date when the complainant purchased the policy from the OPs and when the said vehicle met with an accident and completely damaged and after issuance of legal notice.

 3. After admitting the complaint, this Commission ordered to issue notice to OP.  Notice sent to OP duly served, called out absent, placed exparte.

4. So as to prove his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence in support of his complaint.  He has also produced documents in support of his case and marked Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.8.   The complainant has also filed his written arguments. Heard the complainant’s counsel.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1.  Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?
2. What order?

  6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.2:  As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. Point No.1:  Point No.1:  We have stated above that OP did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant by way of filing the version, hence placed exparte. Under such circumstances, non-appearance and non-filing of version can be drawn an adverse inference that, the OP has admitted the claim of the Complainant in the light of the decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s.Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., vs. Aman Kumar Garg, wherein it is held that,

“Non-filing of written version to complaint before the forum, amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint”.

8. Any how we place reliance on the available materials on record.  In the instant complaint, the complainant has sought for directing the OPs to pay the Insurance declared value (IDV) amount of Rs.95,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical sufferings and costs.  With regard to the insured value of the said vehicle in question is concerned, the complainant has produced Ex.A.2 wherein the insured vehicle IDV is Rs.95,000/-.  This is from 25^th June 2019 to 24^th June 2019.  The accident in question occurred on 5^th May, 2020 at about 8.45 AM. 
9. With regard to the fact of accident, the complainant has informed to the police by way of filing the complaint on 22.05.2020 i.e. after the long lapse of 20 days.  This delay he did not explained.  As per the request of the complainant, OPs insurance company assess the loss through its surveyor.  The out come of the decision taken by the OPs to repudiate the claim on the ground that “On careful perusal of the said documents it was observed the loss was alleged to have occurred while trying to save an animal, your vehicle hit to a road side tree from right side and then again hit to another tree from left side however upon verification of spot photos, the vehicle is shown to be in front of a tree with right side impact however both sides are claimed to be damaged.  Upon further evaluation of the vehicle damages to left side and right side of the vehicle are not in line with the cause of loss.  The damages appear to be old and they were not relevant to the cause of accident on the left side roof also had come inside even though the impact of the accident was straight to the front right side portion.  The said circumstances are construed as misrepresentation and concealment of actual facts, which is a violation of policy condition no.1.  Condition No.1 – Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrences of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. 
10. To falsify the above contentions in repudiating the claim by the OP, complainant stated that to avoid the cattle he lost the control the staring and dashed the standing trees.  To substantiate this fact, he had produced photographs.  To deny this fact, OPs ought to have appear to oppose the claim by way of filing version, but it did not do so.  Hence, for just disposal of this complaint, we place reliance on the estimated loss for repair cost by the Maruthi Suzuki Proforma Invoice dated 06.05.2020 is for an amount of Rs.31,136.15 including GST Rs.28,336.64 + GST = 36,270.92.  Looking to the photographs produced, the said amount for repair cost is exorbitant.  Further, the contention taken by the OPs in regarding the claim is that the complainant has built-up the story to claim the repair cost.  The said claim supported by the invoice only Rs.36,270/-.  Any how it old vehicle and no total loss to the said vehicle.  The another minor repairs of the said vehicle caused before the accident and got it repaired after this accident cannot be ruled out.  Hence, out of the total sum of Rs.36,270/-, we deduct Rs.16,270/- and award an amount of Rs.20,000/- which is on the basis of guess work as the vehicle in question was 2008 model. Hence, complainant is entitled from repudiation of the claim with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, we answered the point no.1 partly in the affirmative.

          11. Point No.2:- In the result, we pass the following

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant u/s.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is allowed in part.
2. OPs are jointly and severally directed to pan an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only)  with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.
3. OPs shall comply this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per Law.
4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 30^th day of August, 2021).

List of documents produced by the complainant marked as Ex.A.1 to 8 are as follows:-