Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/58/2018

Lekkala Manju Bhargavi, W/o L.Munirathnam Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

V.Sreenivasulu

04 Dec 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 17.08.2018

Order Date:04.12.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.58/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

Smt. Lekkala Manju Bhargavi,

W/o. Sri.L.Munirathnam Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 32 years,

H.No.1-5/A, Kammakandriga Village,

Gangireddypalle Post,

Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         The General Manager,

            M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

            No.401 and 402, 4^th Floor, Interface – 11,

            New Linking Road,

            Malad (West),

            Mumbai – 400 064.

 

2.         The Branch Manager,

            M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

            No.10-14-577, IV Floor, RV Towers,

            Tilak Road,

            Tirupati – 517 501,

            Chittoor District.                                                                  … Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 29.11.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.V.Sreenivasulu, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            Complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, alleging as follows – Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the authorized representatives of opposite party insurance company. Complainant purchased a car of Mahindra & Mahindra make, bearing model Verito D2, by availing finance from Mahindra Finance Company and she has been paying the EMIs regularly thereafter. The said car was registered with registration No.AP-03-BV-0651 with RTA, Tirupati on 19.04.2016, and the said car was insured with opposite parties for a period of one year commencing from 12.08.2016 to 11.08.2017 with e-policy No.3001/1-47141654 and policy No.3001/119999111/00/000, as package policy to cover risks of own damages and also third parties. While the policy was in force, the car met with an accident on 11.05.2017 at about 1.40 p.m. near Surutupalle, when the driver of the car T.Surendra Reddy, in order to avoid accident steered the vehicle and in that process lost control over the vehicle and dashed against road side pillar, resulting in damage of front portion of the vehicle beyond repairs. The complainant intimated the accident over phone to opposite parties. The vehicle was entrusted to the driver T.Surendra Reddy. The officials of the opposite parties visited the scene of offence and made enquires and collected photographs, and directed the complainant to shift the vehicle to its authorized service centre at Tirupati i.e. Sri.Bhagavan Motors. After shifting the vehicle to service centre, the service centre people estimated the damages to a tune of Rs.7,34,026/- and intimated the same to complainant. On such intimation, the complainant brought to the notice of the officials of opposite parties about the estimation given by the service centre and requested them to process the claim form submitted by her. A written complaint dt:13.05.2017 was lodged by the complainant with SHO, Nagalapuram, immediately after the accident, and basing on the said complaint, the SHO, Nagalapuram, after due verification of the vehicle documents and investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver T.Surendra Reddy, and hence imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section-184 MV Act. The fine amount was paid and a certificate was issued by the SHO, Nagalapuram PS to that effect. In spite of repeated requests made personally and over phone, the opposite parties never responded. The complainant shifted her vehicle to the service centre and the vehicle is lying there. The opposite party officials issued letter dt:25.08.2017 duly intimating that her claim has been repudiated, as there is no insurable interest between the complainant and opposite parties, since the vehicle was sold and vehicle RC and policy were yet to be transferred. From the date of purchase, complainant is the owner of the vehicle and she never sold the vehicle to anybody and therefore repudiation is not justified. The question of no insurable interest between the complainant and opposite parties does not arise and the opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice in repudiating her claim on false ground. The complainant being a lady, unable to attend the opposite party office personally, but submitted the documents and records as required by the opposite parties. As the opposite parties failed to settle the claim inpite of repeated oral demands and written requests and unjustifiedly repudiated her claim, she has issued a registered legal notice dt:27.01.2018, calling upon the opposite parties to settle the claim, but the opposite parties having received the notice did not comply her demands. The complainant therefore left with no option, but to file the complaint claiming Rs.7,34,026/- with interest at 24% p.a., and Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and another Rs.1,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice and also costs of litigation.

            2.  Common written version filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 contending as follows – At the outset complaint allegations are denied. The complainant is called upon to prove that she purchased a car of Mahindra & Mahindra make, bearing model No.VERITO D2, by availing finance from Mahindra Finance Company Ltd., and the EMIs are being paid to the said company from the date of availing finance and that the car has been registered with registration No.AP-03-BV-0651 with RTA, Tirupati, on 19.04.2016, and that it has insurance coverage with opposite parties for a period of one year from 12.08.2016 to 11.08.2017 with e-policy No.3001/1-4741654/00/000 and  policy No.3001/119999111/00/000, as a package policy under private car package policy, to cover the risks of own damages and also third parties. It is denied that the policy was in force, as on the date of accident on 11.05.2017, that took place near Surutupalli and that the driver T.Surendra Reddy is responsible for the accident. It is denied that complainant intimated about the accident over phone to the opposite parties immediately after the accident and further entrusted the vehicle to car driver T.Surendar Reddy, and that the officials of opposite parties visited the place of accident and made enquiry and collected photographs, and directed the complainant to shift the vehicle to the authorized service centre at Tirupati, and accordingly the complainant shifted the vehicle to Sri Bhagavan Motors. It is further denied that after shifting of the vehicle, the service centre people estimated the damages caused to the vehicle to a tune of Rs.7,34,026/- and the same was brought to the notice of the complainant by the service centre and in turn the said information was given to the opposite party officials to process her claim. It is denied that immediately after the accident, the complainant lodged police complaint with SHO Nagalapuram, and basing on the said complaint, the SHO, Nagalapuram after due verification of vehicle documents and conducting investigation, came to conclusion that the said accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver T.Surendar Reddy and fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed under Section-184 of MV Act, and the driver paid the said amount by admitting the offence and to that effect the SHO Nagalapuram issued a certificate. It is denied that inspite of repeated personal requests and requests made over phone, the opposite parties did not respond and that the officials of the opposite parties finally sent a letter dt:25.08.2017 by intimating that the claim has been repudiated, as there is no insurable interest between the complainant and the opposite parties, as the subject vehicle was sold, and the RC and policy of the vehicle is not transferred. It is denied that from the date of purchase, she alone is the owner of the vehicle and never sold the vehicle to anybody, and that she has been paying EMIs to the finance company, and that the question of no insurable interest between her and the opposite parties does not arise. It is denied that the opposite parties failed to settle the claim submitted by the complainant. It is denied that complainant has undergone mental agony due to non settlement of the claim by the opposite parties. The claim of Rs.7,34,026/- against the opposite parties and compensation claimed by complainant for Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and another Rs.1,00,000/- towards causing mental agony and harassment is baseless and false.

3.  It is stated that officials of the opposite parties on 15.05.2017 sent surveyor, loss assessor and valuer to the place of accident and also appointed investigator by name Glorious Insurance Services, to investigate into the alleged accident, and accordingly after due survey and investigation respective organizations submitted their reports with respective documents. At the time of investigation and also during the survey, the investigation agencies collected the statements of the driver and inmate of the vehicle and the insured i.e. the owner of the vehicle and it is disclosed that the complainant sold her car for a sum of Rs.7,64,400/- on 11.08.2016 and received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards advance and the purchaser has to pay the remaining EMIs to the finance company, and accordingly they entered into an agreement of sale dt:11.08.2016, and after verifying the documents, opposite parties came to conclusion that as on the date of accident there is no insurable interest between the complainant and opposite parties. As on the date of accident, the vehicle is in the care and custody of said purchaser and no steps were taken by the complainant to transfer the vehicle in favour of the purchaser, and also not intimated the alleged sale transaction to the opposite parties, and not made any application to transfer the policy issued to her in favour of the alleged purchaser. Hence, the opposite parties intimated the same to the complainant by duly repudiating the claim through letter dt:25.08.2017, as there is no insurable interest between the opposite parties and complainant. The statements of the driver, inmate and owner of the vehicle i.e. complainant have been recorded by the investigation agency of the opposite parties. There is no privity of contract between the opposite parties and complainant. The surveyor, loss assessor and valuer appointed by the opposite parties gave report stating that assessed amount of damages is only Rs.3,23,771/- and not Rs.7,34,026/-, as estimated by the service centre. Since the complainant has no insurable interest, the claim was repudiated. There is no question of indulging in unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.  Complainant filed the chief affidavit as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the opposite parties one B.Srinivasa Rao, Legal Manager of opposite parties filed the chief affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B10.

5.  The points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether there is no insurable interest between the complainant and the

       opposite parties?

(ii).  Whether there is deficiency in service and indulging unfair trade practice

        by the opposite parties, as alleged by the complainant?             

(iii).  To what relief?

6. Point Nos.(i), (ii), (iii):-  In the written arguments filed  by the complainant, it is argued that she is the owner of the car bearing No.AP-03-BV-0651 of Mahindra & Mahindra Company, which was registered with RTA, Tirupati on 19.04.2016, and that she purchased the same by taking loan from finance company and has been paying EMIs regularly. Further, it is submitted that the car has insurance coverage with the opposite parties vide e-policy No.3001/1-4741654/00/000 with policy No.3001/119999111/00/000, as package policy with effect from 12.08.2016 to 11.08.2017, and the car met with an accident on 11.05.2017 near Surutupalle village at about 1.40 p.m., during the validity period of the insurance and that she immediately complained to the opposite parties about the accident and also lodged police complaint with Nagaralapuram PS., and that the vehicle was shifted to Sri Bhagavan Motors, authorized service centre of Mahindra & Mahindra Company, and that they estimated the repair charges to a tune of Rs.7,34,026/- and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite parties by the complainant, and subsequently claim was made by her, but the same was repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that there is no insurable interest between her and the opposite parties, as the vehicle was sold to third party by the complainant.

7.  In the written arguments filed by the opposite parties, they contended that there is no insurable interest between the opposite parties and complainant, since she sold the vehicle to third party. Though the opposite party denied about the accident of the vehicle and asked the complainant to prove the same, in the written version opposite parties have admitted the fact of accident, since they stated that they appointed the surveyor, loss assessor, valuer and investigation agency, to investigate into the accident and to assess the damages. In the written arguments it is stated that one Glorious Insurance Service was entrusted by the opposite parties with investigation into the alleged accident, and the investigation revealed that the complainant sold her car for a sum of Rs.7,64,400/- on 11.08.2016, by receiving an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the purchaser as advance and that the purchaser has agreed to pay the remaining EMIs to finance company, and an agreement of sale was executed between them on 11.08.2016, and on verification of said documents and investigation report of Glorious Insurance Services, they came to the conclusion that there is no insurable interest between the complainant and opposite parties, since the vehicle was sold, though transfer of the vehicle in favour of purchaser was not effected so far. It is therefore argued that complainant has no right to claim any compensation from the opposite parties, since she is not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident, and as such they are justified in repudiating her claim by way of repudiation letter dt:25.08.2017.

8.  There is no dispute that the subject vehicle has insurance coverage under Ex.A1 and Ex.B2. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the subject vehicle and R.C. stands in her name as per Ex.A2. Ex.B1 is claim submitted by the complainant. Ex.A3 is filed in order to show that front portion of the subject vehicle was extensively damaged. Ex.A4 is computerized pollution under control certificate with regard to the subject vehicle. Ex.A5 is requisition given by T.Surendra Reddy, who is the driver of the subject vehicle at the time of accident on 11.05.2017, requesting for issuance of certificate regarding the accident. The police has issued certificate under Ex.A6 to the effect that accident took place and front portion of the car got fully damaged but none were injured. In Ex.A6, it is also mentioned that the complainant herein is the owner of the subject vehicle and she preferred written compliant on 13.05.2017 at 5 p.m. before S.I. of Police, Nagalapuram PS, to take necessary action, and that the driver of the subject vehicle was also fined Rs.1,000/- and paid the said amount vide receipt No.109801 dt:13.05.2017. It is the case of the complainant that soon after the accident, the vehicle was moved to authorized service centre, and they estimated the cost of repairs at Rs.7,34,026/- vide Ex.A7. Repudiation letter is marked as Ex.A8 wherein the reason for repudiation is stated as “Non insurable interest (vehicle was sold, RC and insurance policy was not transferred till the date of loss)”. The online account statement of loan account of complainant issued by the financier is marked Ex.A9 and it is filed in order to show that EMIs were being paid regularly with regard to the car loan. Ex.A10 is legal notice issued by the complainant on 29.01.2017 demanding payment of Rs.7,34,026/- as per the estimation given by authorized service centre for repairing the subject vehicle with interest at 24% p.a., along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony to her, besides costs for the legal notice.

9.  It is the contention of the opposite party counsel that during the investigation done by Glorious Insurance Services, certain statements were recorded. Ex.B3 is the statement of insured along with translation copy, in which she stated that she purchased the subject car by taking loan from finance company with monthly EMI of Rs.17,800/-, and thereafter the said car was sold to one T.Surendra Reddy, by taking Rs.1,20,000/- from him along with continuation of finance agreement. Ex.B4 is statement of T.Surendra Reddy, wherein he has given the details of the manner in which the accident occurred and also stated that the subject car was sold to him by the complainant on 11.08.2016 for Rs.1,20,000/- along with continuation of finance agreement, to pay further EMIs by him. Ex.B5 is intimation given to ICICI Claims Manager of opposite party about the accident by M.Jayachandra, who was travelling in the subject car at that time. Ex.B6 is copy of sale agreement dt:11.08.2016 with regard to subject vehicle, as per which complainant has agreed to sell the vehicle to T.Surendra Reddy. Ex.B7 is Glorious Insurance Solution Services, to whom the investigation was entrusted by the opposite party with regard to the accident of the vehicle. As per Ex.B7 the driver name is shown as T.Surendra Reddy. It is also mentioned that the vehicle got insurance coverage under private car package policy valid from 12.08.2016 to 11.08.2017. Name of the insured is shown as L.Manju Bhargavi, who is the complainant in this case. Ex.B8 is Surveyor Loss Assessor and Valuer report in which the date of registration of the vehicle is mentioned as 19.04.2016 and the insured name is shown as L.Manju Bhargavi. Name of the driver is mentioned as T.Surendar Reddy. The note in Ex.B8 shows that there is no insurable interest, as the vehicle was taken by another person with continuous finance. The opposite parties basing on Ex.B8 had issued repudiation letter under Ex.B10. Ex.B9 is estimation submitted by the complainant to the opposite party dt:15.05.2017, as per which the authorized service centre estimated the repair cost at Rs.7,34,026/-.   

10.  From the documentary evidence, it is clear that the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that she has no insurable interest, since the vehicle was agreed to be sold to one T.Surendra Reddy for Rs.1,20,000/- with continuation of finance as per agreement dt:11.08.2016, which is marked Ex.B6. The contention of the complainant counsel is that she has not sold the subject vehicle to any person and she continuous to be owner of the subject vehicle as per R.C., and as such repudiation of her claim by opposite party is not justified.

11.  We have perused the documents and on hearing both counsels, we came to conclusion that since the RC stands in the name of the complainant, she continuous to be the owner of the vehicle. The opposite parties have not impleaded T.Surendra Reddy, as party to this case, to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the subject vehicle and he is the owner of the vehicle, as on the date of accident. We, therefore, hold that repudiation of claim of the complainant by opposite party is not justified on the ground that she has no insurable interest as claimant, since there is no dispute that the insurance as well as RC stands in the name of the complainant. Hence, we are inclined to allow this complaint.

12.  In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,34,026/- (Rupees seven lakhs thirty four thousand and twenty six only) towards cost of repairs as per Ex.A7, and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation due to deficiency in service and a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Eight (8) weeks time is granted for compliance of the order, failing which the repairs cost of Rs.7,34,026/- and compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.       

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 4^th day of December, 2019.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                                  

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Smt. Lekkala Manju Bhargavi (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri B. Srinivasa Rao (Chief affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of the Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule Private Car Package Policy bearing policy No. 3001/119999111/00/000  issued in favour of complainant issued by the opposite parties. Period of Insurance from 12.08.2016 11:59:49 to Mid Night of 11.08.2017.
	Photo copy of REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE of the vehicle pertaining to the complainant. Dt: 19.04.2016.
	Colour photo copy of the damaged car of the complainant.
	Photo copy of the POLLUTION CERTIFICATE pertaining to the complainant car. Dt: 03.02.2017 valid up to : 02.08.2017.
	Photo copy of written complaint lodged to the SHO, Nagalapuram Police Station, Nagalapuram. Dt: 13.05.2017.
	Photo copy of CERTIFICATE issued by the SHO, Nagalapuram Police Station, Nagalapuram confirming the accident and levying of fine against the driver of the complainant and also payment of fine. Dt: 13.05.2017.
	Original copy of ESTIMATION for Repairing the Car of the complainant issued by the Bhagavan Motors, Plot No.152, S.V. Auto Nagar, Renigunta Road, Tirupati-517 503.
	Photo copy of Repudiation Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. Dt: 25.08.2017.
	Online Statement of Loan Account (Photo copy) of the complainant issued by her financier with regard to her Car Loan. Dt: 28.12.2017.
	Office copy of the registered Legal Notice Dt: 26.12.2017 issued to the opposite parties issued by the complainant. Dt: 27.01.2018.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited CLAIM FORM FOR MOTOR VEHICLE submitted by the complainant in original.
	Photo copy of ICICI Lombard PRIVATE CAR PACKAGE POLICY Certificate cum Policy Schedule (Insurance Policy) issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. Dt: 12.08.2016.
	TRANSLATION STATEMENT OF INSURED Lekkala Manju Bhargavi in original. Dt: 26.06.2017.
	STATEMENT OF THE DRIVER of the Insured with translation in original.  Dt: 25.06.2017.
	STATEMENT OF THE INMATE of the Insured Car with translation in original. Dt: 25.06.2017.
	Photo copy of SALE AGREEMENT executed between complainant and one Sri T. Surendar Reddy with translation. Dt: 11.08.2016.
	INVESTIGATION REPORT of Glorious Insurance Solution Services Limited in original.
	Photo copy of SURVEY REPORT pertaining to the complainant’s vehicle submitted by the Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Valuer. Dt: 19.08.2017.
	Photo copy of the ESTIMATION submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties. Dt: 15.05.2017.
	Photo copy of Repudiation Letter (regarding Claims Status Notification) issued by the Authorized Signatory, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. Dt: 25.08.2017.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                          President (FAC)

     

                                    // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

    

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.