ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in repudiating the claim in respect of the accident repair charges of vehicle No.KA-04 AC-1636 and for reimbursement of repair charges Rs.6,91,160/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of claim till realization and for Rs.1,00,000/- as consequential damages for in ordinate delay in processing the claim and Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and hardship and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses and for other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is the registered owner of vehicle KA-04 AC- 1636 TOYOTO ETIOS having insurance with OP under package policy by paying Rs.18,686/- being the premium for the period from 29.08.2019 to 28.08.2020. The said insurance also covers personal accident for the owner cum driver and the ID value of the vehicle was Rs.7,74,155/-.

3.     It is contended that, the complainant was driving the said car on 08.06.2020 and at 12.45 pm on that day on the Bidar–Balki road near Dhannur Cross he dashed to a motor cyclists causing grievous injuries to him and he was taken to hospital, 108 ambulance and shifted to the Bidar hospital and the matter was reported to police on the same day and FIR was registered in Crime No.92/2020 and the IMV report also be obtained immediately. Police have conducted all the formalities in respect of the accident and later his car was shifted to “Toyoto Karuna Motors Gulbarga Pvt. Ltd.” It has estimated Rs.6,11,160/- as the repair charges.  The same was informed through the garage to the OP for making payment along with documents of his car i.e. RC, permit, policy, tax paid receipt, estimation and DL.  It was informed to the OP that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and had a valid Driving license.  He did not fill the claim form given to OP whereas he was not at all aware till OP rejected his claim on the ground that there was misrepresentation of the fact that one Somashekaraiah was driving the vehicle and the same has been mentioned in the claim form.

4.     It is he who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the police filed a complaint against him before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court Bhalki in CC.No.1642/2020 and the that he has paid the fine in respect of the said crime.  Even on the date of filing of this complaint, the said vehicle is with the garage and they are demanding to pay Rs.3,000/- per month for parking and that he has paid Rs.20,000/- so far for the delay in OP clearing the insurance claim and payment towards repairing charges. He has been put to irreparable loss, untold hardship, mental shock and agony and inconvenience due to the unreasonable delay in settling the claim. He had to issue a legal notice. On 20.06.2020 OP issued a letter repudiating the claim and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed the commission to allow the complaint.

5.     Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the commission, contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same filed is with mala-fide intention, on baseless ground, and reckless allegations. There is no deficiency or negligence on its part in repudiating the claim of the complainant as there is violation of the condition No.1 of the insurance policy wherein, complainant ought to have informed the insurance company by issuing notice upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Further on their investigation, they found that one Somashekaraiah was driving the vehicle which met with the accident. The same was misrepresented by the complainant as he was driving the said vehicle.  The survey report and the investigation report establishes that the complainant has misrepresented the fact of driver driving the vehicle. There is no case made out regarding deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, no loss have been caused to the complainant as alleged and hence prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint. On the other hand, it has admitted having issued insurance to the vehicle by collecting Rs.18,686/- being the annual premium for the ID value of the vehicle Rs.7,74,155/- for the period 29.08.2019 to 27.08.2020.

6.     In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 :   In the Affirmative.

POINT NO.2 :   Partly in the Affirmative.

                        For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

8.     On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by the both the parties, it becomes cleared that, complainant’s vehicle was insured with the OP for the period from 29.08.2019 to 27.08.2020 by collecting a premium of Rs.18,686/- for the value of the vehicle Rs.7,74,155/-.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 08.06.2020 on the Bidar-Bhalki Road and as a result, the motorcyclist got injured and was admitted to the hospital.

9.     The complainant has produced the RC of the vehicle standing in his name, the insurance policy, the copy of the FIR, the Motor Vehicle Report, Estimation in respect of the repair charges, Copy of the Driving license and the repudiation letter. The charge sheet is also filed wherein as per the said chargesheet the complainant N.Shivashankara was driving the vehicle and he was made the accused for the offence under Section 279, 338 IPC.  He has requested the complainant on 28.11.2020.  Copy of the legal notice is also issued by the complainant.

10.   It is the specific case of OP that, the complainant while claiming the insured amount has misrepresented the fact that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, whereas, from their investigation, it was found that one Somashekaraiah was driving the vehicle and that is why there is misrepresentation which is much in violation of clause-1 of the insurance policy and that is why they have repudiated the claim of the complainant.

11.   It is to be seen here that, though OP has taken up the said contention no documents has been produced worth believing to come to the conclusion that the complainant has misrepresented the fact stating that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, whereas one Somashekariah was driving the said vehicle. Absolutely there is no evidence to support the case of the OP. On the other hand, the documents produced clearly go to show that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle and was driving the same on the date and time of the accident, for which he was booked by the concerned police in CC No.1642/2020 and has paid Rs.2,000/- as fine before the said court. If at all, he was not at all the driver, driving the vehicle at the time of accident, why the police in the FIR has stated  his name as a driver responsible for the accident.

12.   OP has not at all placed any material in particular the investigation report and the survey report to show that one Somasheraiah was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, as it is the specific case of the OP that in the investigation they found that the said Somasheraiah was driving the vehicle and same was misrepresented by the complainant. Further chargesheet could not have been filed against him.  Hence OP has found a lame reason to repudiate the insurance contract which is the habit of the insurance company all the while. It has adopted a policy of repudiation of the claim as a rule and honouring the claim an exception. Hence the repudiation of the claim of the complainant in respect of the reimbursement of the repair charges to the accident vehicle amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2:

13.   The complainant has sought refund Rs.6,91,160/- being the amount estimated to get the vehicle repaired. He has also produced Ex. P6 the estimate for repair by the concerned service center i..e KARUNA MOTORS GULBARGA PVT. LTD., dated 16.06.2020 The total cost of the parts mentioned as Rs.5,32,133/- and the labour costs Rs.79,027/-0 and in all Rs.6,11,160/- .

14.   According to the complainant, since OP did not honour the claim to reimburse the repair charges, and did not give green signal to the service center to repair the same, the said vehicle is still in the said garage for which they are charging Rs.3,000/- per month since June 2020 onwards and that he has paid Rs.20,000/- so far and liable to pay remaining amount till he gets that repaired vehicle delivered to him.  Though the complainant has claimed paying the said amount he has not produced for having paid the said amount. Even then, the garage will charge parking fee as it cannot keep the vehicle indefinitely without repairing the same.

15.   OP has also not questioned the genuineness, correctness or the fairness of the estimated repair charges as per Ex. P6. In view of our holding Point No.1 in the affirmative, OP is bound to pay Rs.6,11,160/- being the estimated repair charges of the vehicle along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 08.06.2020 till the date of payment of the said amount. And further Rs.2,000/- per month as parking charges till the vehicle repaired and delivered to the complainant subject to production of the original receipt by the complainant for having paid the said amount to Karuna Motors Gulbarga Pvt. Ltd. Further the act of OP in not paying the claim amount made the said garage to keep the vehicle in its garage due to which complainant was put to inconvenience as the vehicle was not available to him to carryon his livelihood, for which we direct OP to pay Rs.500/- as damages for each day from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. from 26.07.2020 till the payment of the entire repair charges.  Further  also Rs.50,000/- towards damages for causing him mental agony and hardship and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.   Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and  pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.
2. OP i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Represented by its Manager / Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay Rs.6,11,160/- being the repair charges of the vehicle along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 08.06.2020 till the date of payment of the said amount.
3. OP is also to pay Rs.500/- as damages for each day from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. from 26.07.2020 till the payment of the  entire repair charges.
4. Further OP is hereby directed to pay Rs,50,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses to the complainant.
5. OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 09^th day of MARCH  2022)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Registration Certificate.

Ex P2: Copy of the Insurance.

Ex. P3: Copy of the FIR.

Ex P4: Copy of the IMV Report.

Ex P5: Copy of the Driving License.

Ex P6: Copy of the Estimate prepared by service centre.

Ex P7: Copy of the Repudiation letter issued by Insurance Company.

Ex P8: Copy of the Charge sheet.

Ex P9: Copy of the receipt for having paid the fine.

Ex P10: Copy of the letter written to the insurance company dated 28.11.2020.

Ex P11: Copy of the legal notice.

Ex P12: Postal receipt.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Santhosh BL,  Legal  Manager of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the  policy with terms and conditions.

Ex R2: Copy of the Repudiation letter.

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

RAK*