Date of Filing: 06.01.2021
Date of Disposal: 26.04.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.16/2021
PRESENT:
-
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
Sri. Jayantha.K.A
S/o. K.T.Annegowda,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o at Kalasinda Village,
Kalkere Post, Kasaba Hobli,
Channarayapattna Taluk,
Hassan District.
(Rep. by Sri.M.G. Ravisha, Advocate) … COMPLAINANT.
- V/s -
M/s. Royal Sundram General
Insurance Company Limited,
(Formerly known as;
Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited)
Corporate Office: Vishranti Melaram
Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi
Salai (OMR), Karapakkam,
Rep. by its Authorized Person.
Raja Ram Mohan Roay Road,
Opp. To Kanteerava Stadium,
Off Richmond Road,
Bangalore -560 027.
(Rep. by Sri.Channabasappa S.N, Advocate)
...OPPOSITE PARTY.
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER
01. The present complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,491.20/- [including toe charges of Rs.5,000/-] towards repair charges of the car and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and to grant such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
02. Brief facts of the complaint:-
The complainant is the owner of Maruthi Suzuki Car bearing No.KA-13-P-4343 insured the same with the opposite party under Policy No. VPC 1335744000100 by paying the premium of Rs.20,380.96/-. It was bumper to bumper coverage policy. The opposite party issued the said policy on 01.09.2020 through normal post and it was reached to the complainant on 04.09.2020.
02(a). At the time of obtaining the said policy the complainant had furnished all particulars of the said policy including the details of previous policy and the claim obtained under the said previous policy.
02(b). Further the said insured car met with an accident on 04.08.2020 by accidently hitting the compound wall at Kalasinda and got damaged to front portion i.e., bumper and its accessories. Then it was duly informed to the opposite party over phone and as per its instructions the said vehicle was taken to nearby service station for its repair. Then the complainant made the insurance claim under the said insurance policy. Subsequent to claim made by the complainant the opposite party made a demand of extra amount of Rs.2,862/- on 10.08.2020 towards premium as it was short fall. It is said that, it was needed to pay the insured claim in respect of the said damage.
02(c). The opposite party after collecting the extra amount of Rs.2,862/- declined to settle the insurance claim of the complainant by saying that, he can get claim in respect of accidental damages occurred from 29.08.2020 onwards. Further, the complainant alleged that, since the complainant did not inform the claim obtained under previous policy, he is not entitled for the claim of the said accidental damage caused on 04.08.2020.
02(d). This act of the opposite party caused mental agony and other difficulties to the complainant as his wife was pregnant, her regular checkup, delivery of the child, and most importantly it was Covid-19 situation when transportation was not available. To meet all these the complainant constrained to get repaired his said vehicle by himself by paying an amount of Rs.1,24,491.20/- with other service station.
02(d). The complainant has suffered mentally and financially by the act of opposite party. He was constrained to issue legal notice dated 14.10.2020. The said legal notice was duly served upon the opposite party, but they failed to comply the same. The complainant left with no other alternatives to approach this Commission for the redressal of his grievance under Consumer Protection Act 2019 for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
03. The notice of this complaint was duly served upon the opposite party. The counsel for the opposite party filed detailed version, partly denied the averments made by the complainant. The counsel for the opposite party contended that, the insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated on 13.08.2020 as per the terms of the policy that, there had been misrepresentation of facts with regard to the vehicle claim under the previous policy. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
04. The evidence from the side of the complainant is taken as NIL. The counsel for the opposite party filed affidavit in the form of their evidence in chief. EX-R.1 to EX.R.6 are marked.
05. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party ?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the
relief as sought ?
(3) What order ?
06. 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
07. POINT NO.1 & 2:- To avoid repetition of the facts of the complaint we have discussed both the points together.
08. The complainant had filed this complaint for the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. The counsel for the opposite party had filed detailed version, partly denied the averments made by the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
09. The point to be noted here is that, this Commission has observed that, the notice of this complaint was duly served upon the opposite party and the counsel for the opposite party had filed version and led his affidavit evidence and marked EX-R.1 to EX.R.6. Further on perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that, the complaint is posted for the evidence affidavit of the complainant on 22.03.2021.
10. Since from 21.04.2021 till this day the complainant and his counsel remained absent and did not led his affidavit evidence. It is the burden on the complainant to prove his complaint through his affidavit evidence and documentary evidence as contemplated under Section 38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant did not file any affidavit in the form of his evidence.
11. Section 38(9) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 contemplates that, the District Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit in respect of reception of evidence as affidavits. Therefore, the complainant shall tender the sworn affidavit evidence by entering into witness box. That has not been complied by the complainant in the present complaint in hand. The complainant had failed to prove the burden casted on him. Hence the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as alleged. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 & 2 are in negative.
12. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, 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 pleadings and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, revised and then pronounced in the Open Commission on 26th Day of April 2023).
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainant side:
Documents marked for the complainant side:
– NIL –
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Sri. B. Suheel Kumar, Area Head Manager of opposite party (RW-2) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.
Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:
- Letter of authorization – EX.R.1.
- Copy of insurance claim – EX.R.2.
- Copy of survey report – EX.R.3.
- Copy of service estimation – EX.R.4.
- Copy of payment confirmation with copy of cheque dt.09.04.2021 – EX.R.5.
- Copy of repudiation letter dt.13.08.2020 – EX.R.6.
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
