State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sagar D.R. S/O. Ranganatha D. vs The Manager, National Insurance Co. ... on 5 June, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1017/2015 ( Date of Filing : 17 Nov 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/08/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/34/2015 of District Davangere) 1. Sagar D.R. S/o. Ranganatha D. Aged about 27 years, R/o. Komaranahalli, Harihara Tq., Davanagere Dist. 572106 . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Melagiri Plaza, 2nd Stage, Medical College Road, M.C.C.B. Block, Davanagere 577530 . 2. The Divisional Manager, Authorized Signatory, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 1st Floor, S.S. Complex, B.H. Road, Shivamogga 577201 . ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 05 Jun 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JUNE 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1017/2015 Sri Sagar D.R S/o Sri Ranganatha D, Aged about 27 years, R/o Komaranahalli, Harihara Taluka, Davangere Dist-572106. (By Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, Advocate) ......Appellant/s V/s 1. The Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd, Melagiri Plaza, 2nd Stage, Medical College Road, M.C.C. B Block, Davangere-577 530. .....Respondent/s 2. The Divisional Manager, Authorized Signatory, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Divisional Office, 1st Floor, S,S, Complex, B.H.Road, Shivamoga-577 201. O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Appellant/Complainant has preferred this appeal against the dismissal order dt.31.08.2015 passed in CC.No.34/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Davangere which dismissed the complaint as there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Respondent-1 and submits that the complainant had obtained the vehicle Insurance Policy from the OPs towards the Car bearing registration No.KA-17/B-7284 which is valid from 1.03.2013 to 28.02.2014 such being the case during the policy is in force, the vehicle met with an accident on 3.05.2013 at Rannebennur as on the date of accident one Mr.Kallesh.K.M was driving the vehicle he had a valid driving license of the vehicle. The said driving license was also produced before the District Commission the claim for own damage was repudiated by the OPs for which the complaint alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission.
2. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the driver of the vehicle as on date of accident had no valid driving license to drive the particular type of vehicle and he had no badge issued by the RTO to drive the vehicle. In fact the driver one Mr. Kallesh K.M had two driving license in one driving license he had badge to driving the motor vehicle and another driving license it reflects no badge. But, the District Commission had not appreciated the license with an endorsement of badge of the driver and dismissed the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and prays to direction be given to the OP to sell own damage claim of the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard from Respondent, appellant not present and not submitted any arguments. Anyhow on perusal of the certified copy of the order, Memorandum of appeal it is an admitted fact that the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-17/B-7284 is insured with this OPs/Respondent which is valid from 1.03.2012 to 28.02.2014 and it is also not in dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 3.05.2012 at Rannebennur. After the accident the complainant being owner/beneficiary of policy had claim for own damage has he spent nearly an amount of Rs.1,42,243/- towards repair and Rs.7,500/- towards other charges. After receipt of the claim form along with documents the OP Company repudiated the claim for the reasons that the driver at the time accident had not possessed badge to drive the said vehicle and shown their inability to settle the claim.
4. Aggrieved by the said repudiation the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission at Davangere alleging a deficiency in service and sought for payment of own damage by virtue of the policy.
5. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint after appreciating the evidence given by the OP that Mr. Kallesh K.M had no badge to drive the vehicle as per Ex-R-3. Whereas, we noticed that during the course of trial the complainant also produced one driving license for Mr. Kallesh K.M which is marked as Ex-P-4 to show that he had a valid driving license having badge issued by the R.T.O Shivamogga dated 23.10.2010 to drive light motor vehicle cab, when the driver had valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle cab having a badge. The District Commission ought to neglect the driving liecense produced by the OP marked as Ex-P-3 which reflects he has no valid driving license without badge for the purpose of settlement of the claim. In fact, the OP also would have considered the driving license produced by the complainant which is marked as P-4 which reflects he has badge to drive the light motor cab w.e.f. 23.10.2010. Instead of appreciating the driving license produced by the complainant, the District Commission made an error in appreciating the driving license produced by the OP which is not Ex-P-3 as because at the time of settlement of the own damage claim. The Insurance Company should always show favor to the complainant since the concept of Insurance policy is a social legislation which requires always in favor of the Customers/Complainant. The claim made by the complainant is genuine one and the driver had a valid driving license to drive the vehicle and he also had valid badge as on the date of accident issued by R.T.O on 23.10.2010.
6. Therefore, the claim is liable to payable by the OP. The OP before the District Commission has not produced any surveyor report to show that how much the complainant is entitled for settlement under own damage claim in absence of that we are of the opinion that all eligible repair charges spent by complainant is payable by the Opposite party. Accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside and complaint is allowed with below directions. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R The appeal is allowed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order dated 31.08.2015 passed in CC.No.34/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Davangere is hereby set-aside.
The OP/Respondent is directed to settle the own damage claim of the complainant under the policy by paying eligible repair charges along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.
Further, the Respondent/ OP directed to pay above said within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the payable amount carry interest of 9% shall be payable by OP from date of default till realization.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar) Member Judicial Member SP* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER