State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Future Generali India Insurance Co. ... vs 1.Smt. Sandipamu Mercy on 14 December, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.663 OF 2018
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.289 OF 2015, DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
Smt.Sandipamu Mercy, W/o.Kurapati Vijaya Rao,
Aged about 50 years, Indian, Occ: Service,
R/o.Flat No.306, Block-F,
Vertex Sadguru Krupa Apartments,
Nizampet Road, Hyder Nagar,
Hyderabad - 500 072.
Presently residing at:
Flat No.105, Rock View Residency,
Road No.5, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad - 500 034.
....Appellant/Complainant
And
1.M/s.Renault Hyderabad (A unit of Sri Sri Auto Cars (I) Pvt.Ltd.), Membi Centre, 6-1-346/3, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad - 500 027.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Sri Sri Auto Cars India Pvt.Ltd., Membi Centre, 6-1-346/3, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad - 500 027.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
3. Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., No:7-1-21A, APDL Estates, 1st Floor, Opp. Hotel Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.Parties: M/s. T. Rajanikanth - R1 & 2 M/s. S. Sravan Kumar - R3 FA.NO.230 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.289 OF 2015, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD Between:
Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., 7-1-21A, APDL Estates, 1st Floor, Opp. Hotel Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 16.
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 And 2
1. Smt.Sandipamu Mercy, W/o.Kurapati Vijaya Rao, Aged about 47 yrs, Occ: Service, R/o.Flat No.306, Block-F, Vertex Sadguru Krupa Apts, Nizampet Road, Hydernagar, Hyderabad - 72.
.....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. M/s.Renault Hyderabad (A unit of Sri Sri Auto Cars (I) Pvt.Ltd.), Membi Centre, 6-1-346/3, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad - 27.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
.....Respondent No.2/Opp.Party No.1
3. Sri Sri Auto Cars (I) Pvt.Ltd., Membi Centre, 6-1-346/3, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad - 27.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
.....Respondent No.3/Opp.Party No.2 Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party No.3 : M/s. S.Sravan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant:M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondents2&3/Opp.Parties1&2: Sri T.Rajanikanth Reddy QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO,...MEMBER-JUDICIAL THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble I/c President)
1. These are the appeals filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dated 08.10.2018 of the District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad, made in CC.No.289/2015.
The Complainant filed FA.No.663/2018 and the Opposite Party No.3 filed FA.No.230/2019. As both these appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
33. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Complainant purchased a "Renault Scala RXZ Diesel Car" from Opposite Parties 1 & 2 for a total sum of Rs.11,67,883/- which includes two years insurance. In order to purchase the car, he availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from M/s.Magma Finance which had to be repaid in 60 EMIs of Rs.11,510/- per month. The Insurance Policy for the first year was taken from M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.8,85,000/- valid from 12.12.2013 to 11.12.2014 and the second year's policy was taken from M/s.Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited and valid from 13.12.2014 to 12.12.2015. He submits that the vehicle met with an accident on 23.12.2014 and an inquest was conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dundigal, Cyberabad.
4. The vehicle was shifted to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 on 24.12.2014 and the loss was construed as total constructive loss. Although several attempts were made for the settlement of the claim, there has been no response from the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.3 has alleged that there is misrepresentation on the date of the policy and that the date of the accident was prior to 23.12.2014. The condition of the vehicle has deteriorated since it has been lying with the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 since long. He is also being burdened by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to pay demurrage charges, which is very unjust.
5. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 obtained the Insurance Policies from Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.3 is not settling the claim amount. Hence, the present complaint is filed against the Opposite Parties for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
6. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their written version and submitted that the Complainant obtained first Insurance Policy from M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited commencing from 12.12.2013 to 11.12.2014 and second policy from Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 had informed to Opposite Party No.3 on 11.12.2014 itself and the cover 4 note indicates the period of Insurance Policy commenced from 13.12.2014 to 12.12.2015. The policy commenced from the date of submitting the cover note itself. They further submit that the vehicle was kept in the garage since long time and it was difficult for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to maintain the vehicle properly and to prevent it from damage, rust etc. Hence they issued final reminder to the Complainant to get the vehicle repaired. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
7. The Opposite Party No.3 filed their written version and stated that a cover note bearing No.4048823 issued by M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited shows that the policy period commenced from 13.12.2013 to 12.12.2014 but a close scrutiny shows the period of insurance commenced from 12.12.2013 to 11.12.2014 but the same has been tampered by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.3 issued the policy for the second year for an assured amount of Rs.7,08,000/- covering the period from 13.12.2014 to 12.12.2015.
8. The Opposite Party No.3 after receiving the intimation of accident, appointed an investigation agency by name Agile HRM Services on 02.01.2014. The said agency submitted report on 17.02.2014 stating that the date of accident was in the early hours of 13.12.2014 and the policy issued by the Company was after the said accident. This Opposite Party also appointed a surveyor viz., Y.Venkatesh who also opined that the accident might have occurred prior to the date of issuance of policy. The loss to the vehicle was assessed at Rs.4,25,000/- subject to the admissibility of the claim.
9. This Opposite Party also sent letters to SHO, Dundigal Police Station on 27.05.2015 and 01.07.2015 to re-investigate the alleged accident and ascertain the actual date of accident. They also issued No Claim Letter to the Complainant on 16.03.2015 stating that the Complainant misrepresented the date of inception and expiry of previous policy and overwriting of policy period of previous policy which amounts to violation of declaration process 5 in the Proposal Form. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
10. Before the District Commission, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A19 are marked on their behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B4. The Opposite Party No.3 filed their evidence affidavit and Ex.B5 to B13 are marked on their behalf.
11. The District Commission after hearing and considering the material on record allowed the complaint in part directing the Opposite Party No.3 to pay claim amount of Rs.7,08,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.03.2015 to the date of payment. It is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony by repudiating the claim. Opposite Party No.3 is also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of this complaint. Complaint against Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is dismissed.
12. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant filed the appeal vide FA.No.663/2018 contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:
The District Commission ought to have allowed the complaint against all the Opposite Parties jointly and severally.
The District Commission failed to observe that as per the Proforma Invoice of the Company, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have taken the complete responsibility for obtaining the Insurance Policies for the 1st and 2nd year. The Commission failed to see that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 failed to take the 2nd year policy without any break.
The District Commission failed to see that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shifted from M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., to Opposite Party No.3 6 Insurance Company for the renewal of the policy without the knowledge and consent of the Complainant. The District Commission failed to see Ex.A6, A8 & A9 cover notes and the proposal form were not in the handwriting of the Complainant. They were prepared by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
The District Commission failed to see Ex.A17 letter dated 16.03.2015 of the Surveyor Mr.Trinadh Rao, which states that the Complainant misrepresented the date of inception and expiry of the previous insurance policy and the date of accident was prior to 23.12.2014.
13. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 filed the appeal vide FA.No.230/2019 contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:
The District Commission failed to see that the Complainant had not placed the realities on record and misrepresented the facts such as date of inception and expiry of previous insurance policy by submitting cover note by overwriting the policy period of previous policy, which is a violation of the declaration clause in the proposal form. The District Commission failed to see that the Complainant did not file FIR copy but filed only inquest report i.e., Ex.A12.
The District Commission failed to see the discrepancy with regard to the date of accident.
The District Commission failed to appreciate the investigation report Ex.B8, B10 and B11. The District Commission granted relief more than the IDV of the vehicle which is Rs.7,08,000/-.
14. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
715. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
16. The facts of the case which emerge from a perusal of the documentary evidence placed on record reveal the following points:
(i) The vehicle "Renault Scala RXZ Diesel Car" was sold vide Sales Invoice No.1676 dated 13.12.2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,86,900/- inclusive of VAT and was registered as AP 28 CL 2777.
(ii) The first policy was obtained by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 commencing from 12.12.2013 to midnight of 11.12.2014 vide Ex.A5 and the policy for the second year was obtained from Opposite Party No.3 commencing from 13.12.2014 to midnight of 12.12.2015 vide Ex.A7.
(iii) As per the panchanama filed vide Ex.A12 the vehicle met with an accident on 23.12.2014 at Bachupally and the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have admitted that the vehicle was shifted to their workshop on 24.12.2014 and a repair order was prepared vide Ex.A14 for a sum of Rs.13,87,420/-.
17. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have admitted that as per their promise, at the time of purchasing the vehicle, they have insured the vehicle for two consecutive years. At the time the accident occurred, the Insurance Policy issued by M/s.Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited was very much in existence and the Complainant informed Opposite Party No.3 about the damage and claim No.CV458720 was also registered.
18. The duty of Opposite Parties 1 & 2 cannot be found fault with. They have taken the policy from Opposite Party No.3 and the allegation that the claim is not being settled because details of first policy was not furnished by them is not justified. The impugned order has properly discussed the material placed on record and concluded that as per the Panchanama submitted by the Dundigal Police Station vide Ex.A12, the accident occurred on 23.12.2014 8 which is doubly supported by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 in their written submissions.
19. The Opposite Party No.3 addressed a letter to Sub-Inspector of Police, Dundigal vide Ex.B10 and Commissioner of Police vide Ex.B11 for re-investigating the claim but there is nothing further placed on record to prove their case that the accident occurred earlier than 23.12.2014. They have failed to secure the GD entry details and to merely allege that it was tampered or fabricated is not substantiated by them.
20. We are not satisfied to accept the grounds urged by the Opposite Party No.3 for want of concrete and corroborative proof that the date on the policy was tampered with and that the date of the accident was not as mentioned in the Panchanama.
21. The impugned order has held the Opposite Party No.3 liable to refund the sum of Rs.7,08,000/- being the IDV of the vehicle along with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of complaint i.e., 16.03.2015 to date of payment. While endorsing and confirming this direction, we delete the amounts awarded towards compensation and costs. However, the charges towards demurrage demanded by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have to be borne by Opposite Party No.3 since they unfairly repudiated the claim and the Complainant could not get the vehicle repaired. The Opposite Party No.3 is directed to pay the demurrage charges and re-possess the vehicle to realize the salvage value.
22. In the result, the appeal filed by the Complainant bearing FA.No.663/2018 is dismissed as he has urged the grounds to make Opposite Parties 1 & 2 also liable.
The appeal filed by the Opposite Party No.3 is disposed of and the impugned order is modified with the following directions:
1. The Opposite Party No.3 is directed to pay the Complainant the IDV value of the vehicle i.e., 9 Rs.7,08,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from date of complaint i.e., 16.03.2015 till realization.
2. The Opposite Party No.3 is also directed to pay the demurrage charges to Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and
3. The Opposite Party No.3 after complying the above two directions is further directed to re-possess the vehicle to realize the salvage value.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-J
Dt: 14.12.2023
UC*