Karnataka

Gadag

CC/5/2018

Praveen S Gynappanavar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The M.D. United India Insurance Co Ltd & Another - Opp.Party(s)

C.R.Vadakkannavar

23 Feb 2019

ORDER

                                           -::O R D E R::-

  BY: SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT.

 

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming from the Opposite parties (herein after in short as Op’s) to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, with interest @ 22% from the date of accident intimation i.e., from 03/02/2015 to till realization and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing deficiency in service, mental agony, hardship and to grant such other reliefs.

 

-::Brief facts of the case are as under::-

2.      The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased the Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-25/P 5168.  The above said vehicle was insured with the OP No.1 & 2 Insurance company.

3.      Further stated that, on 03.02.2015, due to negligent act of the car driver, the said car was met with an accident on Tadahal-Nargund Road, near Bennihall curve and due to the said accident, the car was completely damaged. The Navalagund Police have registered the complaint U/S. 279 and 338 of IPC in the Cr. No.24/2015.   Thereafter the complainant has intimated the said accident to OP No.1 and the OP No.1 informed the complainant to send the vehicle to Manikbag Automobiles, Hubballi for repair.    Hence the complainant after releasing the said vehicle from police custody, taken to Manikbag Automobiles Hubballi for repair and they have estimated the repair cost at Rs.2,50,000/- and the surveyor of OP No.1 also conducted the survey.

4.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted the claim form to OP No.1 claiming the settlement, but the OP No.1 dragged the settlement on one or the other reasons. Hence the complainant got issued legal notice to both the OPs on 02/01/2017, inspite of receipt of the notice, OPs kept quiet. It is further submitted that the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident and the driver of the said car had valid and effective driving license.  The complainant is a businessman he is badly in need of the vehicle for his day to day business by which he earns for his family.  Due to this negligent act of the OPs complainant suffered heavy loss and mental agony.    Therefore the complainant filed this complaint claiming compensation as stated above.

5.      The predecessor on seat registered the complaint and notice was ordered as such Opponents present before the Forum. Op’s filed their written version the contents are as follows.

 

Written Version of the Op’s

1.      The Complaint of complainant is not true or bonafide one.  It is not tenable in law. The contents of complaint are all false and are specifically denied by the OP. The complainant has filed the false and vexatious complaint suppressing the material facts.

2.      The contents of the para-1 of the complaint are true and correct.  The contents of Para-2 of the complaint are partly true and correct that the vehicle bearing No.KA-25/P-5168 is insured with the OP NO.2 company and the said vehicle met with an accident.  But it is false to say that the complainant has spent Rs.2,50,000/- for repair of the said vehicle.   Further it is true that the OPs got the vehicle surveyed through IRDA Surveyor.

3.      The contents of Para-4 of the complaint are all false and are specifically denied.   The Complainant has falsely contended that the OPs went on dragging the settlement of claim on one reason or the other.

4.      It is further submitted that the OP-Company has appointed C.Y.Patil Advocate of Dharwad to investigate about the accident that took place on 03-02-2015 with regard to vehicle bearing No. KA-25/P-5138.   The investigator met the complainant on 02/07/2015 calling upon him to furnish the information regarding the occupants of the car by name Bhimappa Nagappa Hadamannavar and Smt Kumkumadevi Hadmannanavar.  The complainant did not furnish any information about the occupants of the car.   The investigator wrote two letters to the complainant calling upon to furnish the information about the occupants of the car.   The complainant did not furnish any information and wrote a letter dated 24-07-2015 and 28-08-2015 requesting to give time stating that the occupants have gone to Bangalore for treatment and not yet returned.  Thus the complainant failed to comply with the request of the investigator and did not furnish any information regarding the occupants of the car.

5.      The OP No.2 wrote a letter dated:10-09-2015 to the complainant stating that, the complainant failed to furnish the information regarding occupants of the car by registered post and the same has been received by the complainant, but not given any reply till today.   The OP No.2 has clearly stated that if the complainant fails to furnish the information regarding the occupants of the car and the claim will be repudiated.  Inspite of all these facts, the complainant did not furnish any information about the occupants of the car either to the company or the investigator.    It is further submitted that the contents of Para 5,6,7 & 8 of the complaint are all false and hence denied.  It is further submitted that the alleged accident took place on 03-02-2015 and the OP sent repudiation letter on 10-09-2015, hence this complaint is hopelessly barred by time.

6.      It is further submitted that the car of the complainant bearing registration No.KA-25/P-5168 is registered as private car and insured with the OPs as private car, but on the date of accident, the complainant has used the car on hire and reward basis.  This amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the policy; hence the OP No. 2 is not liable to indemnify the complainant.   Without admitting liability it is submitted that  if the Forum comes to the conclusion that the OPs are liable to pay the compensation, then the OPs submits that the IRDA surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.1,14,000/-.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts.  Therefore the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7. The Complainant has filed his affidavit and filed 09 documents which are as follows;

COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows:-

	Particulars of Documents
1	FIR & Complain.
2.	Spot panchanama.
3.	MVI Report.
4.	Charge sheet.
5.	Insurance policy.
6.	R.C
7.	Driving license.
8	Copy of legal notice.
9.	Tax invoice of Manikbag automobiles.

 

8.   On the other hand OP No.2 filed evidence affidavit along with 5 documents, which are as follows;

respondent FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows:-

Sl.No.	Documents
1	Certified copy of Insurance Policy
2	Copy of investigation report.
3	Copy of letter written to the Complainant dated:10-09-2015.
4	Postal acknowledgement of the Complainant.
5	Surveyor Report.

 

9.     On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudication are as follows: Points arises for our consideration are

1.     Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s ?

2.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief ?

3.     What order?

 

Our Answer to the above points are:-

1.  Affirmative.
2.  Partly Affirmative.
3.  As per the final order.

 

•  

10.   Point No.1 & 2:- Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

Complainant filed this complaint against the OPs for insurance amount of his car bearing No.KA-25/P- 5138 insured with the OP No.2.  The said vehicle met with an accident complainant approached the OPs for insurance amount.   But the OPs have not paid the insurance amount.  On the other hand the OPs denied all the allegations made by the complainant and submits that the complainant had not furnished the documents well in time hence they repudiated the claim on 10/09/2015 itself and further the OPs submits that without prejudice to their objection they are ready to settle the insurance amount as per their IRDA Surveyor survey i.e., Rs.1,14,000/- to the complainant.

11.   On-going through the record on file, Complainant filed a I.A. for production of document, the said document has been produced by the OPs with concerned to the vehicle i.e., survey report, vehicle damage photos, claim repudiated letter, as well as acknowledgment postal receipt.  In these documents the OPs produced all the documents except the photos which belong to the damaged vehicle has not been produced.   As per the repudiation letter placed before the Forum, it has been sent to the complainant on 10/09/2015, on the same day, it has been delivered to the complainant, as per the acknowledgment produced before the Forum.  Even complainant had not denied the same,  as per the submission and even complainant not filed any application for condoning the delay.  In the complaint the cause of action has been mentioned on 02/01/2017.  It is well settled in the consumer Protection Act that, the case has to be filed within 02 years of repudiation of the claim and issuance of the legal notice is not a protection sheet to the complainant.  But here we appreciate the OPs written version in Para No.13, it is submitted that, if Forum found, the OPs are liable to pay the compensation is ready to pay the compensation only to the extent of Rs.1,14,000/- as per the IRDA survey.

 

 

12.    Of course, Complainant gave lot of reasons that he approached the OPs several time, but the OP did not respond the same and dragged on the same on one or the other reasons.  Moreover the policy was force, during the accident. Hence the Forum comes to conclusion that it has to be settled on non-standard basis.   Hence we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative and the Point No.2 is partly in the affirmative.

13.   Point No.3:- For the reasons and discussion made above we proceed to pass the following:-

 

               ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant partly allowed.
2. Further the OPs are directed to pay Rs.1,14,000/- to the Complainant within one month, failing which OPs are liable to pay interest @ 12% from the date of accident till realization.
3. Parties have to bear their own costs.

    4.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 23^rd day of February-2019)

 

 

 

 

(Shri B.S.Keri)                                            (Smt.C.H.SamiunnisaArbrar)

      Member                                                                    President