Complaints filed on: 21-05-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 19-11-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

          DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CC.No.97/2022

Fazil Pasha S/o Jaffar Sadiq,

Aged about 32 years,

Business in occupation,

Resident of Sadshivanagara,

Tumkur Town, Tumkur Taluk

and District.

……….Complainant

 (By Sri. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate)

V/s

The Manager,

Liberty General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Office at No.21/15, the land mark,

4^th Floor, Near trinity Metro,

M.G.Road, Bangalore-56 0 001.

……….Opposite Party

 (By Sri. N.V.Naveen Kumar, Adv.,)

:ORDER:

BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed the complainant against the OP U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OP to pay the ID value of Rs.21,09,772/- towards the car bearing Registration No.KA-64-M-9279 and also damages of Rs.2,00,000/- and other incidental charges of Rs.50,000/- and further prays to direct the OP to pay the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest along with cost and other incidental charges. 

2.       The brief facts of the complaint as under:-

The complainant is the owner of the PAJERO car bearing its registration No.KA-64-M-9279 and he was insured his car with General Insurance Company/OP and thereby the OP has issued private car package policy by collecting the premium of Rs.63,033/- from complainant and they have assessed the ID value of the said car for Rs.21,09,772/- and the OP has issued the policy on 20.01.2021 and the same was valid till 19.01.2022 vide policy No.2011-500201-20-1001050-03-001.  The complainant used the said car for his personal use and since from purchase, he was insured the said car with the OP.  It is further submitted that the said car was met with an accident on 12.01.2022 at about 7:30 PM at MLA House, Sira Tumkur Road, Tumkur Taluk due to wrong full act of the driver by name Sadiq Pasha S/o Jaffar Sadiq, who possessed valid and effective D.L. to drive the said car. 

2(a).  The complainant further submitted that after the accident, he left the said car at BOSCH Car Service Centre for repair and the same was informed to OP and their authorized agents for survey and thereafter the OP’s agent visited the garage in first week of February 2022 and recorded the history of accident and also collected all necessary documents as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further submitted that the authorized person of the said garage has issued estimated bill for repair at Rs.42,92,787/-.

2(b).  The complainant further submitted that the OP has assured to reimburse the ID value, but subsequently failed to do so till today for the reasons best know to them.  Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice on 21.04.2022 to pay the ID value and on receipt for the said legal notice, the OP on 25.04.2022 gave evasive reply.  Hence, the complaint.   

3.       After service of notice, the OP appeared and field the version admitting the issuance of policy, its validity and ID value, but contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The OP further contended that the alleged accident was took place on 12.01.2022 at about 8.00 PM, but the complaint was lodged on 13.01.2022 at about 10.15 PM and hence there was delay of 1 day in lording the complaint and thereby it is violation of the policy terms and conditions.  It is further contended that as per the complaint lodged with the policy, clearly shows that there were three persons i.e. Mohammed Sanaulla, Mohammed Sadiqu Pasha and Alimuddin were travelling in the said car, but only one Mohammed sanulla has sustained the injuries in the alleged incident.    This clearly shows that Mohammed sanaulla was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident and not Mohammed Sadiq Pasha. It is further contended that to gain wrongfully, next day of incident, the complaint was lodged by showing that one Mohammed Sadiq pasha was driving the insured vehicle at the time of alleged incident even though he has not sustained any simple injury over the body in the said accident.    

3(a).  The OP further contended that immediately after receipt of the claim, they appointed one Yogananda an IRDA approved surveyor to assess the loss caused to the insured vehicle and the said surveyor has visited the spot and collected the information and assessed the loss to an extent of Rs.19,29,270/-.  But the complainant colluded with the BOSCH car service center has given estimation for Rs.42,92,787/-.  It is further contended that the manner of accident and its damages shown in the seizure mahazar, the IMV report are very less damages, but the complainant in collusion with the BOSCH car service center has created further damaged the insured vehicle and shown the same to the surveyor at the time of inspection and hence suspects that the complainant has mis-leaded, created further damaged the insured vehicle and got prepared estimation for higher value.

3(b).  The OP further contended that they have sought some documents from the complainant, but the complainant failed to furnish the documents in spite of reminder notice. It is further submitted that the OP till today has not repudiated the claim, but the complainant himself is negligent in providing the documents sought by the OP.  It is further contended that basing on the reports, the OP has sought some requirements, but same is not complied by the complainant till date and it shows that the complainant himself is negligent and the complainant has clearly violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the OP has not committed any deficiency in service.  On these among other grounds, the OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P20. One Mr.Shraddha Kinare, AVP & Corporate Legal Manager of OP filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OP and the OP has marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R3.

5.       We have heard the arguments from both parties.

6.       The points that would arise for our consideration are:

1)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?

2)                     Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?

7.       Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: Partly in the Affirmative

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

Point Nos.(1) & (2):

8.       The admitted facts between the parties are:

1. The complainant is the owner of the PAJERO car bearing its registration No.KA:64:M:9279 and insured his car with General Insurance Company and used the said car for his personal use.
2. The OP assessed the I.D. value of the said car for Rs.21,09,772/- by collecting the documents pertaining to the said car.  The OP has issued private car package policy by collecting premium of Rs.63,033/- from complainant on 20.01.2021 and the same was valid till 19.01.2022. 
3. The car was met with an accident on 12.01.2022 at about 7.30 PM at MLA House, Sira-Tumkur Road, Tumkur Taluk due to wrongful act of the Driver Sadiq Pasha and he possessed valid and effective D.L. to drive the said car.
4. After the accident, complainant left the said car at BOSCH Car service Centre for repair and the same was informed to the OP on 13.01.2022 about 10.15 AM.  Authorized person of the said garage has issued estimated bill for repair at Rs.42,92,787/- and it is not an actual bill for repairs.
5. After receipt of the claim, the OP appointed an IRDA approved surveyor to assess the loss caused to insured vehicle and he assessed the loss to an extent of Rs.19,27,270/-.  The OP has sought some documents from the complainant, but the complainant has not submitted the documents as required by the OP.
6. The OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant till today.  Therefore, t he complainant issued legal notice on 21.04.2022 and the OP replied on 25/04/2022.  Hence, complainant filed this complaint.

9.       The OP raises mainly three objections, they are

• There is delay in intimation,
• 03 persons were travelling in the car, but only one person sustained injuries at the time of accident,
• OP sought some documents from the complainant.

For first objection of the OP, on perusal of pleadings and evidence, there is no delay in intimation.  The car was met with an accident at 7.30 PM on 12/01/2022 and the complainant intimated to insurance company and police station on 13.01.2022 at 10.15 a.m. i.e. within 15 hours.  Hence, it is not considered as delay in intimation.

For second objection of the OP, the Ex.P.13 clearly shows that the front row passenger air bags are opened and for that reasons may be severe injuries not sustained.

For 3^rd objection, the OP contended that on the basis of survey reports, the OP has sought some documents, from the complainant and the complainant failed to furnish the documents in spite of reminder notice, the OP further contended that the OP till today not repudiated the claim and the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service.

On perusal of Ex.P.18, 1^st letter of request/reminder dated: 20/04/2022, it is seen that the OP’s Company surveyor requested to submit the following documents

• Used car purchase invoice/delivery note from previous owner/used car dealer.
• Bank transaction details for purchase of vehicle from previous owner/used car dealer.

10.     For settlement of the claim, the above documents are not necessary and at this juncture it is irrelevant, because the OP already assessed the ID value of the said car by fixing the premium and policy was also issued by collecting premium on 20.01.2021.  Now asking for submission of the above documents itself amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP.  It is not in dispute that the car is in the name of complainant and also there is a valid policy which was issued by the OP and surveyor has also assessed the losses.  When such being the case, the OP without producing any documents to show that the complainant has violated any terms and conditions of the policy dodged to settle the claim of the complainant and till today the OP has not settled the claim.  It seems the OP is not interested to settle the genuine claim of the complainant.  This act of the OP is nothing but deficiency in service. 

11.     The complainant claimed I.D.value of the car and other charges under the following heads:

The surveyor assessed the loss to an extent of Rs.19,29,270-00 i.e. 91.44% of the ID Value of the car.  Hence, this loss is treated as total loss of the car.  Therefore, it is just and proper to direct the OP to pay the ID value of the car by receiving the salvage(car) from the complainant.  The complainant is also liable to hand over the salvage(car) to the OP.  The complainant is also entitled to claim interest @ 8% p.a. from the OP on the ID value of Rs.21,09,772/- as compensation The complainant further claimed damages and other incidental charges as per above table at Rs.3,50,000/-.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we award Rs.25,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.  Accordingly, we pass the following:-     

:O R D E R:

          The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

The OP is directed to pay ID Value of the car i.e. Rs.21,09,772/- with interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of complaint to till realization by receiving the salvage(car) from the complainant.

The OP is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) as damages and Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) as litigation expenses. 

Further, the OP is directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.

          Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of costs.

(