State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M.Sriramulu S/O Late M.Istaraiah vs The Reliance General Insurance ... on 13 June, 2013
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.80 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.6 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II HYDERABAD Between: M.Sriramulu S/o late M.Istaraiah Aged about 70 yrs, R/o H.No.18-4-125 Outside Aliyabad, Kalwaguda, Hyd Appellant/complainant A N D 1. The Chairman cum Managing Director The Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg Ballard Estate, Mumba-001 2. The Reliance GIC Ltd., Rep. by its Claim Manager, 4th Floor, Sagar Plaza Abids, Hyderabad Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant M/s U.Pratap Rao Counsel for the Respondents M/s G.Ramachandra Reddy QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER THURSDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed complaint claiming a sum of `2,16,000/- for reimbursement of the amount for repair of his insured vehicle, `1,73,000/- towards compensation for suffering mental tension as also interest @ 24% per annum and costs.
2. The case of the appellant as seen from the averments of the complaint is that the insured his car bearing registration No.AP 09 BN 3732 with the respondent insurance company for a sum of Rs.15,46,608/- for a period of one year from 31.8.2007 to 30.8.2008. The car was damaged by miscreants on 30.3.2008. The appellant rivals filed a false civil case against him and damaged the insured vehicle. The appellant lodged claim in the first of April 2008 which was not settled on the premise that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. The appellant approached the insurance ombudsman who passed an award on 4.5.2009 for settlement of claim on exgratia basis at `1,00,000/-. The respondent insurance company has not paid the amount as directed by the insurance ombudsman.
3. The respondent deputed surveyor to assess the damage caused to the vehicle.
Mahaveer Auto Limited estimated the amount for repairs of the vehicle at Rs.3,17,817/- which was submitted to the surveyor and the surveyor deleted certain items from the estimate. The appellants vehicle was in the workshop for a period of three months due to non-settlement of the claim by the respondent insurance company. The appellant got issued notice dated 9.9.2009 claimed a total amount of `.5 lakh from the respondent.
4. The respondent-insurance company resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant failed to take steps to safeguard the vehicle. The vehicle was engaged in carrying on an unlawful activity at the time of the accident. The PS concerned registered a case u/s 147 and 148 of IPC. The claim was submitted after three months of the incident. The policy does not cover the liability and as such claim was rightly repudiated. The insurance ombudsman awarded a sum of Rs.one lakh towards damage caused to the vehicle and in compliance of the order, the respondent issued cheque for `1,00,000/- which was received and encashed by the appellant on 28.7.2009.
5. The appellant suppressed the fact of receiving the amount of `1,00,000/-
towards full and final satisfaction of his claim which was received without any protest, filed the complaint. The appellant approached the District Forum with unclean hands. The appellant invented story to claim a sum of `5 lakh which is not tenable. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the respondents prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A22. On behalf of the respondent, its Manager has filed his affidavit but no documents.
7. The District Forum has partly allowed the complaint awarding an amount of `1,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on the premise that the respondent paid a sum of `9,000/- out of `1,00,000/- directed to be paid under the award passed by the insurance ombudsman.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of `1,000/- and interest thereon the complainant has filed appeal contending that the District Forum ought to have awarded the entire amount instead of granting `1,000/- and failed to award interest as also the District Forum failed to consider documents filed by the appellant.
9. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to any amount higher than the amount granted by the District Forum?
10. Many of the facts are beyond any dispute such as the ownership of the vehicle, insurance coverage of the vehicle and the vehicle meeting with an accident. The appellant has claimed the amount of `2,16,000/- whereas the respondent contended that the appellant having received the amount of Rs.one lakh towards full and final satisfaction of his claim in terms direction issued by the insurance ombudsman, cannot make any further claim as also on account of suppression the fact that he received the amount from the respondent.
11. The District Forum observed that the insurance ombudsman awarded an amount of `1,00,000/- and the respondent paid a sum of `99,000/- and thus directed the respondent to pay the balance amount of `1,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant passed on delayed intimation about the damage caused to the vehicle; he left the vehicle unattended in contravention of condition no.4 of the insurance policy; a case was registered against the appellant u/s 147, 148 of IPC.
The insurance ombudsman held that the vehicle was parked at a distance from the scene of offence.
12. As seen from the award passed by the insurance ombudsman, the net loss to the vehicle assessed by the surveyor was at `1,66,954/-. The insurance ombudsman taking into consideration of the violation of terms of insurance policy by the appellant, passed the award for `1,00,000/-. There is no explanation from the complainant as to his committing violation of the terms of the insurance policy. Considering the nature of the damage caused to the vehicle, contributory negligence of the appellant and inability of the respondent in support its version, the insurance ombudsman had rightly concluded that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- can be directed to be payable as exgratia to the appellant.
13. Before the District Forum, the respondent has raised objection as to the maintainability of the complaint on the premise that the appellant having received the amount of `1,00,000/-, suppressed the fact to get further amount. The District Forum found that the respondent instead of making payment of `1,00,000/- in compliance of the award passed by the insurance ombudsman, paid an amount of Rs.99,000/-.
The District Forum, thus allowed the complaint to the extent of the balance amount of `1,000/- payable to the appellant by the respondent under the award of the insurance ombudsman.
14. The Honble National Commission in Neelam Gupta vs Reliance Life Insurance and another reported in I (2011) CPJ, 241 held that material suppression of facts of the case would disentitle the person approaching Consumer forum from claiming any relief.
15. The appellant approached the insurance ombudsman and received the amount of `99,000/- from the respondent on the basis of the award of the insurance ombudsman. He suppressed the fact of receipt of the amount from the respondent. He claims in the appeal the balance amount of his claim. As contended by the respondent, the appellant cannot approach the District Forum with unclean hands concealing the fact that he received the amount of `99,000/- by virtue of the award passed by the insurance ombudsman. Despite the fact, the District Forum was liberal to award the balance amount of `1,000/- since the respondent had also concealed the fact that it paid a sum of `99,000/- and not Rs.1,00,000/- as contended by it. In the circumstances, we do not find the appellant entitled to claim any further amount than that was paid by the respondent in terms of the award passed by the insurance ombudsman and the amount as awarded by the District Forum.
16. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.13.06.2013 కె.ఎం.కె.*