Karnataka

Kolar

CC/126/2023

Chowdamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Liberty General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 08/09/2023

Date of Order: 30/01/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:30^th DAY OF JANUARY 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:126/2023

Chowdamma.

W/o. Ravikumar,

Aged about 42 years,

Occu: House Wife,

R/at: Chikka Ankandahalli(V),

Bangarpet Taluk,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri. Suman K, Advocate)                 ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

The Manager,

Liberty General Insurance,

# 21/15, 4^th Floor,

Near Trinity Metro,

M.G. Road, Richmond Town,

Bengaluru-560 001.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)                ….Opposite Party.                                                                   

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed U/s 35 of the C.P.Act 2019 against the OP and praying for direction to the OP to pay the insurance amount in respect of damages caused in an accident to the insured vehicle bearing NO. KA-07-B-4713 and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- compensation and Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental shock and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, complainant was purchased the bolero pickup FB PS 17TXL goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA-07-B-4713 from the Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited No.189/88A,190B Chintamani Taluk for a sum of Rs.9,06,999/-on 30/08/2022 by obtaining loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services limited.  It is stated that, the above said vehicle was insured with the OP.No.1 by paying premium amount of Rs.33,469/- and the said vehicle is the bread earning vehicle for the complainant.  Further that on 31/01/2023 when the driver of the complainant by name Nandish who was driven the vehicle while he was coming near the Poultry Farm of Chinnapura Village, Kolar Taluk at that time one tipper Lorry driver coming from opposite direction and due to his rash and negligence driving and in order to avoid accident and thereby said Nandish the driver of the insured vehicle turned his vehicle towards left side and he was suddenly jumped from the vehicle but the vehicle fell down to the ditch and due to impact the vehicle damaged to an extent of total loss.  It is stated that, the complainant lodged the Police complaint before the Kolar rural police on 01/02/2023 and the police register the NCR/Mis, its reference No.25/2023 dated: 01/02/2023.  Further complainant on the basis of the said police issued NCR/Mis, its reference No.25/2023 dated: 01/02/2023 filed claim papers to the OP Insurance Company on 09/02/2023 but the OP Insurance Authority stating that, at the time of accident that the insured vehicle was driven by one Mani and directed to furnish DL etc of Mani but the said vehicle driven by above said Nandish and accordingly complainant alleged that in order to escape the liability OPs have sent the above said alleged letter dated: 01/04/2023.  Hence this complaint.

 

3. In the version of OP it is contended that, OP Liberty General Insurance Limited is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in business of providing General Insurance cover to its customers across the length and breadth of the country hereinafter referred to as Company.  The authorize signatory who filed the version in order to contest the above case.

 

4. Further contended that, it is admitted that issuance of insurance policy in respect of the subject vehicle i.e BOLERO PIK UP FB PS 17TXL GOODS VEHICLE bearing registration No. KA-07-B-4713 and the said policy is issued in subject to its terms and conditions and exclusions under the policy.  Further contended that, company is not liable to pay in the event if the alleged damaged does not fall within the ambit and four corners of the policy of insurance.  It is denied as false that on 31/01/2023 the insured vehicle was driven by Nandish and due to accident caused in order to avoid opposite vehicle and ultimately the vehicle fell in to ditch and got damage.  It is contended that, due to accident complainant was lodged the complaint before the Kolar rural police on 01/02/2023 and the same is not in the knowledge of the OP Insurance Company.  It is admitted that, on issuance of petition to the OP insurance company to settle the insurance claim but the OP deputed an independent agency to verify the veracity of the claim but finally came to know that one Mr. Mani was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and not Mr. Nandish.  Further contended that, based on the findings of the investigator that, the OP insurance company sought the DL of Mr. Mani, but despite reminders complaint failed to submit the same and as such for want of requisites the claim of the complainant was closed under the intimation to the complainant.  Further contended that, complainant failed to intimate the accident immediately to the OP Insurance Company and as such no survey has been conducted.  It is contended that, complainant was also did not came to inform where the vehicle has been left for repairs and the complainant has not furnished the estimate repair charges for the said vehicle.  Hence contended that, complainant set up the theory for filing the frivolous complaint.   On the basis of above said grounds OP denied all the allegations made in the complaint and contended that, the policy issued in subject to terms and conditions and there is no deficiency in service from their part and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

5. In order to prove the case of the parties and both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and documentary evidence.

 

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is deficiency in service committed by the Op Insurance Company for not honoring the Insurance claim?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What Order?

 

We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the evidence placed on record.

Our answers to the above points as under:

Point No.(1):-   In the Affirmative.

Point No.(2):-   In the partly Affirmative.

Point No.(3):-   As per the final orders

                       for the following.

 

                            REASONS

 

7. Point No.(1) & (2):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake of brevity, these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

8. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed on record, it is an undisputed facts that, the Bolero pickup FB PS 17TXL goods vehicle bearing registration No. KA 07 B 4713 is insured with the OP Insurance Company.  On perusal of the exhibit R.4 it discloses that, the Insurance policy bearing No. 201350020122700085400000 and the validity of the policy period from 09/09/2022 to 08/09/2023 and the IDV value is of Rs.8,82,550/- .

 

9. It is the specific case of the complainant is that, the accident had occurred on 31/01/2023 and at the time of accident one Nandish is driving the subject vehicle and at that time a Lorry is coming from opposite direction and the driver of the lorry driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and in order to avoid the accident, Bolero vehicle driver Nandish turned to the left side of the road but the said lorry fell into ditch and at that time  the driver of the Bolero was escaped from the said vehicle and the vehicle finally fell in to ditch and due to impact of accident vehicle got damaged.

 

Per contra, OP Insurance Company contended that, on report of their Independent Investigation Agency it is came to their knowledge at the time of accident one Mr. Mani was driven the vehicle and caused the accident and hence complainant was asked to submit driving license of the said Mani and other documents but the complainant failed to comply the requisition of the OP Insurance company.  Further OP Insurance Company contended the fact of accident not intimated immediately and there is a delay in intimating the same and thereon OP Insurance Company closed the claim.

 

10. The crux of the matter is to consider who was driven the subject vehicle at the time of accident? and such driver was possessing valid driving license.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant and the complainant initially filed 11 documents along with the complaint we will consider only those documents which are needful to adjudicate the controversy in issue.

 

11. On perusal of insurance policy issued by the OP it reveals that, complainant is the insured and the policy bearing No. 201350020122700085400000 with respect of subject vehicle and the validity of the policy from the period from 09/09/2022 to 08/09/2023 is not in dispute.  On perusal of the policy it also reveals that, the accident occurred on 31/01/2023 during the currency of the policy.  Further on perusal of the complaint dated: 01/02/2023 it also discloses that, complainant lodged the police complaint very next day itself subsequent to said accident and in the said complaint it is clearly mentioned that One Nandish was driven the subject vehicle at the time of accident.  Further on perusal of the acknowledgment given by the jurisdictional police C-MISS petition No.59/809/2023 it also reveals that, the said Nandish who driven the vehicle at the time of accident.  Whereas, on perusal of the OP letter of request/remainder dated: 01/04/2023 it reveals as per their investigation it was found that one Mr. Mani who was driven the vehicle at the time of accident and hence sought to produce driving license of the said Mani.  Further on perusal of the photograph produced on part of evidence of the complainant it also reveals that, due to accident vehicle had fell into ditch from the high level and got damaged to extent of total loss and same is evidenced by the copies of photographs produced. 

 

12. It is worth to note that, when the complainant present before this Commission she is an uneducated lady but not having much knowledge of law and she is earning her livelihood from the said subject vehicle.  Furthermore, when the accident is occurred on 31/01/2023 when the driver escaped from the accident and on very next day the complainant was lodged the police complaint on 01/02/2023 and thereon police acknowledgment dated: 01/02/2023 and these documents discloses that, the complainant with a bonafide intention lodged the complaint by intimating the police and hence delay in intimating the Insurance company for a period of 9 days delay in intimating cannot be a ground to repudiate the claim of the complainant.

 

13. Further we relay the crux of the matter is that, the delay in intimating the OP Insurance Company is disentitled the complainant to claim insurance benefit covered under the policy?  It is well known fact that, the insurance is a contract based on doctrine of Uberrima fide and it is applicable for both parties.  Insurance is a contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a contract of indemnity.  Further the object of the insurance is to cover the loss suffered by the insured or its beneficiaries.  In a many decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble National Court, it is held that, mere delay cannot be a ground to repudiate the claim of the insured.   Hence when the policy is in force when the incident was occurred the OP Insurance Company ought to have honored the claim of the complainant by appointing the suitable surveyor to assess the damages.   Further OP Insurance Company cannot exonerate its liability merely on a technical ground of delay and non-honoring the legitimate claim of the complainant as it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP Insurance Company.

 

14. That the condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the Insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. This commission observed that, the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is beneficial legislation that deserves a liberal construction. Hence the word ‘immediately” cannot be construed narrowly so to deprive claimant benefit of the settlement of genuine claim. Further the complainant relied on the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Gujarat, on perusal of the same the Hon’be State Commission based on the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Consumer Protection Act Aims at protecting the interest of consumers and it being a beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction.  Hence contention raised by the OP Insurance Company regarding delay holds no water.  

 

15. Further during the course of arguments complainant submits that, the vehicle is in the yard for repairs such being the case OP Insurance Company surveyor ought to have investigated the same and assess the damages and honor the claim of the complainant.  On looking into the evidence placed on record it discloses that the grievance of the complainant about delay in intimation and at the time of accident one Mani was driven the insured vehicle.  As we discussed above and on the basis of police records One Nandish was driven the insured vehicle and who possess the valid driving liesence.  It is note worthy to mention that, OP Insurance Company failed to produce rebuttable and cogent evidence to falsify the case of the complainant. The non-honoring the claim of the complainant without cogent reasons it amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP Insurance Company.  

 

16. As per the evidence available on record the vehicle is under total loss and the question of salvage can be approximately determined to an extent of Rs.2,50,000/- and the IDV value is Rs.8,82,550/- and after deducting salvage amount it comes to Rs.6,32,550/- and hence OP insurance company is liable to pay Rs.6,32,550/-  further non-honoring the claim well in time and looking to the nature of facts involved in the case we are of the opinion to award interest @ 6% P.a from the date of repudiation till realization on the above amount of Rs.6,32,550/- in addition to that OP is liable to pay Rs.1,000/-cost to the complainant.  Accordingly we answered Point No.(1) in the affirmative and Point No. (2) In the partly affirmative.

 

17.  Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1)&(2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby partly allowed with cost.
2. That the OP Insurance Company i.e “Liberty General Insurance” represent by its Manager is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,32,550/- along with interest @ 6% P.a from the date of repudiation till realization.
3. Further OP Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
4. Further OP Insurance Company is directed to comply the orders shown at above SL.No. (2) & (3) within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and to submit compliance report within 45 days.
5. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

    (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF JANUARY 2024)

 

 

    MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT