Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2069/2012

Krishnappa S/o. Chandappa Pujar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

N.P. Singri

09 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 2069/2012

 

Krishnappa S/o. Chandappa Pujar R/o. Hosa Kanakapur Thanda Tq. & Dist. Koppal (By Sri. N.P. Singri) V/s	….Appellant
The Manager Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kalburgi Square, Desai Cross Deshpande Nagar, Hubli Dist. Dharwad (By Sri. H.N.K. Prashanth)	..…Respondent

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant preferred this appeal against order dated 12.09.2012 passed in C.C.No. 13/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koppal which dismissed the complaint and submits that complainant had filed a complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not settling the own damage claim towards damage caused to his TVS Victor motor bike, but, the District Commission without considering the facts of the case has dismissed the complaint and submits that he had obtained a policy from OP towards his motor bike bearing registration No.KA-37/L-5907 which is valid from 14.02.2007.  Such being the case on 16.01.2008 vehicle of the complainant got damaged due to collusion with a lorry bearing registration No.KA-19/IG 6298.  Immediately the complainant filed claim before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Koppal vide MVC No. 327/2009.  After trial MACT dismissed the claim of the complainant and directed this complainant to approach appropriate authority for claim of own damage.  Basing on the said decision complainant approached this respondent who had issued policy in the name of complainant to his vehicle, but, the respondent without any reason failed to settle the claim of the complainant, for which the complainant filed the complaint before District Commission, but, the District Commission for the reason that complainant had not informed accident to the respondent, after the accident took place and found negligence on the part of complainant and dismissed the complaint.  The complainant submits that the policy is valid and only after claim rejected by the MACT, complainant claimed for settlement of own damage under the policy issued by respondent/OP.  Claim is genuine.  Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

2. Heard.
3. On going through the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal we noticed that the vehicle of the complainant got damaged due to collusion with lorry bearing No.RJ-19/IG-6298 in the accident took place on 16.01.2008.  The complainant after obtaining documents from police has filed a claim before MACT at Koppal.  The said claim was dismissed by MACT and directed the complainant to approach appropriate authority to claim own damage.  Subsequently, basing on the same he approached respondent company for settlement of own damage claim, but, the respondent instead of settling claim had repudiated for the reason that complainant had not informed accident well within time and they are not able to assess the damage caused to the vehicle.  Hence, shown inability.  Basing on the said inability, the complainant filed complaint which was dismissed by District Commission holding that complainant had not informed respondent/insurance company by which they were not able to assess loss.  We are of the opinion that complainant initially had filed a claim before MACT at Koppal which was dismissed and subsequently, he filed a claim along with relevant documents.  The respondent being an insurance company who had issued a policy in favour of the complainant towards his vehicle has to assess loss by appointing surveyor.  Instead of that they have only stated that accident was not informed.  The conclusion for repudiation of the claim taken by respondent in not proper and not in accordance with law.  Nothing was prevented them to appoint surveyor after information given by complainant.  Instead of that they have repudiated the claim without any reason.  We found District Commission made an error in dismissing the complaint only basing on the defense taken by the OP.  District Commission would have suggested the respondent insurance company for appointment of surveyor after obtaining relevant documents i.e., receipts towards repairs and other documents, since, the accident is admitted and FIR was lodged.  We found here that respondent company has not made any efforts to assess loss by appointing the surveyor.  We noticed that complainant has claimed Rs.39,784/- towards own damage claim which according to us is proper.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get own damage claim by virtue of the policy as the accident took place within the policy period.  The order passed by the District Commission lacks legality.  Therefore, it requires to be set aside.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the complaint is allowed and amount to the tune of Rs.39,784/- is payable by OP towards own damage claim to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint.  Further OP is also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service in not considering the claim made by complainant towards own damage claim along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.   
4. The OP/insurance company is directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest at the rate of 12% p.a. will be payable from the date of default.

 

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

CV*