Back
2005 (2) CPR 312
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Chandrashekariah, President; Smt. Rama Ananth & J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, Members
Sai Harisha—Complainant
versus
The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd.—Respondent
Complaint No. 199/1999
Decided on 1.4.2005
Counsel for the parties :
For the Complainant :Sri. B. Prabhakar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where insured concealed material facts while taking policy for machine equipment and fraudulently misrepresented facts, repudiation claim under policy would not constitute deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 12 & 17 — Insurance claim — Electronic equipment insurance policy taken for computerised Wheel Aligner, Wheel Balancer & Engine Analyser — Wheel Aligner was damaged and surveyor assessed the loss — Claim was repudiated as fraudulent — Facts showing that complainant had taken policy from different Insurance Co. on same equipment and before expiry of policy period had taken fresh policy from opp. party — Policy coverage varied as from Rs. 2,60,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- — Facts were concealed while taking present policy — No supporting material to establish ownership of complainant to insured equipment and there was doubt about insurable interest of complainant — Submission of bills for replacement of machinery was necessary for recommendation for settlement of claim as per policy which complainant had failed — Even though complainant had taken policy, without ownership he could not have insurable interest — Complainant was rightly held not entitled to claim under policy.(Paras 6 to 9)
Result : Complaint dismissed.
J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, Member— One Sri. M.S. Harish of Basaves-waranagar, Bangalore, has filed his complaint against the Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office - 3, Bangalore - 560 001, praying for a direction to the OP to pay Rs. 5,75,000.00, and for mental agony & tension, and loss and damage sustained to him due to non-settlement of the claim by the OP, and compensation of any other amount may be decided Rs. 5,00,000.00 with current interest and costs.
1. The facts of the complaints are that the complainant is a self-employed graduate, with dependent wife and daughter and widowed mother. He started Computerized Wheel Alignment at No.22/1, 3rd Main, Attiguppe, Vijayanagar, Bangalore - 560 040, and managing the same with one assistant for maintaining of the family. He approached the OP to cover risk/hazard to his unit on 18.06.1997 and paid Rs. 16,850.00 under Receipt No. 749955 on the same day to the OP. The OP accepted to cover the risk and issued the policy No. 602200/97/44/11/252 under the caption electronic equipment insurance policy EEI(I), for the period from 19.06.97 to 18.06.98 covering all risks, namely (1) Computerized Wheel Aligner, B51, JE103 Sum Assured Rs. 1,00,000.00
(2) Computerized Wheel Balancer, Model: 2400-Sno-4020-9 for Rs. 1,00,000.00
(3) Computerized Engine Analyzer Autograph - Sl. No. 5F609732-A for Rs. 1,00,000.00. On 17.4.1998, at 6 PM, due to electrical spikes and surges, one of the insured item - Computerized Wheel Aligner, was damaged (Item No l). The OP, insurer was intimated over phone and also by the letter dtd. 20.04.98. under reference No. l/SPM/BG/98 with enclosure of Hardware Engineer Report. The OP issued the claim form to the complainant, pertaining to Engineering Insurance Machinery break down claim. Mr. V.L. Ganapathi Subramanya - Surveyor, was deputed by the OP to assess the loss, who visited the premises and inspected the damaged machine and took consent from their 2 Hardware Engineers and submitted his report. At the request of the OP, he contacted the machine dealer at Bombay to give repair estimate, which he furnished at Rs. 5,75,000.00 and it was given to OP. OP again deputed another surveyor Mr. Arunkumar to assess the loss once again, who also visited this place and took necessary photos and asked complainant to get the letter of obsolete from the manufacturer only. He wrote a letter on 19.8.1998 asking to furnish the details, which was clarified by the complainant under his letter dtd. 23.8.1998. The letter from the manufacturer was furnished as required to the Surveyor on 20.7.1998 with a covering letter. As per the requirement of the Surveyor, he faxed the letter dtd. 3.7.98 requesting to repair the machine at component level to minimize the expenditure. He wrote a letter on 5.10.1998 to the OP, intimating them about the shifting of the machinery from Vijayanagar to Basaveswaranagar. On 15.10.98, he wrote another letter regarding settlement of the claim and also intimating them, vacating the premises at Attiguppe, that he is shifting the machinery to his residence. He sent reminder on 27.11.1998 to settle the claim without delay, for which OP replied on 22nd December that they have entrusted investigation whether machine was in working condition prior to the commencement of the policy, and seeking co-operation in that regard. The investigator Mr. C.G. Krishna sought for some clarification on 29.12.1998, which he furnished on 14.1.1999. On 24.3.1999, he addressed a letter to the customer grievance cell at Regional Office of the OP to take up the matter and settle the claim. On 10.6.1999 he received a letter from Pryman, Detective Agency, seeking clarification with respect to the claim, and accordingly, he had already clarified. On 12.10.1999, he gave notice to the OP regarding the deficiency in service towards the settlement of claim by Registered Post, claiming the amount of Rs. 5,75,000.00 along with interest till the date of settlement,
