BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
APPEAL No.836/2015
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Nr.A.C.Murthy Khumar
S/o Chinnappa,
Aged about 64 years, ... Appellant/s
R/at No.14, Aishwarya Nilaya,
Virgonagar Post,
Seegehalli, KR Puram,
Bangalore-560 049
(By Sri.K.A.Patil, Advocate)
-V/s-
1. The Deputy Manager,
The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd, 4th Floor,
Leo Shopping Complex,
No.44/45, Residency Road
Cross, Bengaluru – 560 025
… Respondent/s
2. The Manager,
The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd,
No.5, Richmond Palazoo,
Ground Floor, Richmond Road,
Bengaluru – 560 025
(R-1&2-By Sri.Manoj Kumar.M.R., Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2015 passed by the 1st Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.94/2014 and prays to set-aside the order and grant such other relief as deemed fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complaint is initially filed before the Dist Consumer Forum at Kolar and the same was returned to the complainant to file before the Forum having jurisdiction and subsequently filed the present complaint before this forum. The complainant is the owner of the Car bearing its Registration No.KA-03-ML-1892, Hyundai i10 car. The said car/vehicle has been insured with the Opposite Party No.2 has issued a Private Package Policy Zone A by covering all the damages, bearing Policy No.421703/31/2012/741 and it is valid from 1.7.2011 to 30.6.2012. The complainant submits that, on 28.7.2011 the car has been met with an accident and the car has been fully damaged and case has been registered by the Vemgal Police Station, Kolar Taluk for the incident happened and a case has been registered under Section 304 of IPC. The complainant has also intimated accident to the Opposite Party No.2 about the accident and the damage of the car. The complainant has got the repair of the car from Trident Automobiles Pvt. Limited, Kalyannagar, outer Ring Road, Bangalore-43. The service centre has repaired the car and the complainant has incurred Rs.1,83,584/- towards repair and paid Rs.1,83,584/- to the Trident automobiles service centre, Bangalore, by way of cash on 17.10.2011.
The complainant further submits that, after repair of the car the complainant has lodged a claim with respondent and producing all the bills issued by the Trident automobiles private Limited. The complainant has also produced relevant documents like Driving license issued by K.R.Puram, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore. The driving license is valid up to 9.11.2016. After receiving all the documents from the complainant and as per the intimation letter on 3.8.2011 the complainant has submitted all the records and on surprisingly rejected the claim only on the basis of the complainant is not authorized to drive LMV and hence he was not possessing a valid and effective license at the time of accident in their repudiation letter dated: 27.12.2011 to the complainant vide claim No.420011/31/2012/032300. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 19.10.2013 to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, but Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the complainant and thereby complainant filed this compliant.
3. Upon issuance of notice, Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed their version. The Opposite Parties contended that, complaint is not maintainable on the ground that, at the time of accident occurred on 28.7.2011 resulting in damages and causing death of an Anjinappa did not possess and valid driving license to drive the insured Hyundai i10 car and as such above complaint is to be dismissed. Further on 9.8.2011 appointed an IRDA approved licensed surveyor as to conduct the inspection of insured vehicle, who impact had visited the repairers garage on the same day, on subsequent dates. Further the Opposite Parties denies regarding the information to the complainant to carryout repair of the car with authorized service station. Further the Opposite Parties contended that, the accident was occurred on 28.7.2011 but complainant did not inform the occurrence of the accident immediately to the Opposite Parties but it was informed only on 3.8.2011. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, District Consumer Commission has dismissed the complaint.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. Heard from both sides.
7. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Consumer Commission and materials on record, we noticed that, it is not in dispute that the appellant is the owner of the Car bearing its Registration No.KA-03-ML-1892, Hyundai i10 car and the said car/vehicle has been insured with the Opposite Party No.2 under Private Package Policy Zone A covering all the damages, bearing Policy No.421703/31/2012/741 and valid from 1.7.2011 to 30.6.2012. It is also not in dispute that, the said car was met with an accident on 28.7.2011 resulting in damages and causing death of one Anjinappa. It is also not in dispute that on 9.8.2011 the surveyor approved by the IRDA conducted the survey and also visited the garage.
8. The allegation of the appellant is that, the said car met with an accident and fully damaged on 28-7-2011 subsequently he has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police station and intimated to the Opposite Parties also. As per the information of the 1st Opposite Party the car was repaired by spending Rs.1,83,584/- from authorized service station, Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. After repairing the car, the appellant has submitted the claim along with all bills to the respondent. However, the respondents have repudiated the claim of the appellant on the ground that, the appellant is not authorized to drive LMV and hence he was not has possessing a valid effective licence at the time of accident. Even though the appellant has submitted DL of the appellant which was valid upto 9.11.2016, the respondents have not settled the claim.
9. Per-contra, the respondents have contended that at the time of accident, the driver did not possess valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and also accident occurred on 28.7.2011 and appellant has informed to them on 3-8-2011. Hence the respondents have repudiated the claim of the appellant on the ground of delay intimation and driver has no valid driving licence. The driver has renewed the licence subsequently which is valid till 9-11-2016 for five years since the renewal for the period from 10-11-2011 to 9-11-2016.
10. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the driver/complainant had licence to drive LMV non-transport vehicle validity from 8-2-2011 as per Ex.R13. Subsequently it was renewed till 9.11.2016 as per Ex.R26 for a period from 10.11.2011 to 9.11.2016. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 28.7.2011. As per the contention of the respondents, the driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. However the appellant has authorized and possessed of licence to drive LMV–three-wheeler cab transport vehicle i.e. Autoricksha valid till 10-1-2013 as Ex.R26, means the driver has holding licence, but at the time of accident, it was not renewed. We agree that as per MV Act, 1988 Section 15 where the application for the renewal of the licence is made more than 30 days after the date of expiry it shall be renewed with effect from the date of such renewal, hence, it is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. However as per Ex.C22-“Summary of report” in authorized to drive column shows that, the driver has authorized to drive the vehicle 3W-NT, 3W Cab, LMV and Motorcycle with gear. As per Ex.R26 the driver holding the licence to drive the LMV-3wheelerCAB, Autoricksha etc. Moreover the licence was issued to the driver on 27.6.1972 means non renewal the licence could not met him an unskilled driver. Merely because of expiry of period of license it cannot be said that there is breach of conditions of the policy for which the insurance company cannot be repudiated the claim in toto. The driver of the vehicle was qualified to drive the vehicle and he had licence to drive the vehicle. However the contention of the Opposite Parties is that the said licence was renewed subsequently for the period from 10-11-2011 to 9-11-2016. The fact that the driver of the car has no valid licence renewed on the date of license and got to renewed subsequently would not amounts to breach of conditions of the policy. Moreover other contention of the respondent is that there is delay in intimation about the said accident, but it is fact that at the time of accident death of one Mr.Anjinappa was occurred and in that circumstance this appellant may not straight away go to the insurance company to claim compensation. It is true that the owner of the car has intimate the insurance company immediately. However this type of condition should not bar the settlement of the claim when there was mere delay in intimation on which is due to unavoidable circumstances. Hence we hold that the insured has lodged a complaint before the police and then the surveyor assessed the loss then mere delay of 4 days in intimating the insurance company cannot be the ground to repudiate the claim of the appellant. Hence, the insurance company not discharged its liability merely on technical ground concerned driving licence. The Consumer Protection Act a beneficial legislation it provides protection to the interest of the consumers.
11. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the repudiation of the claim made by the Insurance Company is not just and proper and hence the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is not in accordance with law. Hence in our opinion the respondents are entitled the amount which is loss assessed by the surveyor to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and consequently the complaint is allowed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed. Consequently the complaint is allowed.
The Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay the amount loss assessed by the surveyor to the appellant/complainant.
Further the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Further the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which, the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the above said amount from the date of default, till realization.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Lady Member Judicial Member
Jrk
