This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by Sri. Ranganath R., against the United India Insurance Co.Ltd., and another praying for a direction to the opponents to pay a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- being the insurance claim amount after deducting this salvage value of Rs.45,000/- out of 3,30,000/- of the C.C.No.2/2017 2 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 damaged vehicle bearing No. KA/14 B 0819 along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 9/3/2016 till the date of entire payment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being the damages loss hardship and inconvenience caused and for a further sum of Rs.25,000/- being the cost of litigation.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant as per the complaint are that the complainant belong to weaker section. Under a scheme for providing employment and up-liftment of such persons the complainant has availed loan in the year 2013 through schedule caste development Corporation Ltd., Govt. of Karnataka for the purpose of self employment i.e, to run a taxi. The loan was availed from 2nd opponent Canara Bank. The complainant had purchased one Tata Indica Vista Car bearing No. KA 14 B -0891 and registered as LMV (taxi). The said vehicle was insured with the 2nd opponent with the first opponent United India Insurance Co.Ltd. The premium towards the said insurance was being regularly debited from the loan account of the complainant and the insurance policy was renewed from time to time. The last such policy issued by the first opponent to the vehicle of the complainant was dated; 6/4/2015 with policy number 2404003115P100298751 which was valid for the period from 6/4/2015 till the mid night of 5/4/2016. The insurance declared value of the vehicle is 3,60,000/-.
3. It is the further case of the complainant that he was eking out his livelihood from the said taxi business. He was using the vehicle for his personal, domestic and family purposes also. It is the further case of the complainant on 8/3/2016 when the complainant was proceeding with the said car along with his brother Raghavendra R., the car being driven by Raghavendra R., it met with an accident. That accident occurred while avoiding a cow which entered the main road all of a sudden near Belanahalli, Tarikere Taluk. The said accident was reported to the nearest police station and the same was registered in C.Mis No.111/2016 C.C.No.2/2017 3 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 by Tarikere Police. The first opponent was also informed of the said accident.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that the first opponent appointed a surveyor L.S.Mohankumar who inspected the damaged vehicle on 14/3/2016 and assessed the damage caused to the vehicle and submitted report on 20/3/2016. As per this report the assessment of the damages repair charges was to a tune of Rs. 3,54,416=79. The complainant after discussing was convinced and consented for the total loss claim of the vehicle at Rs. 3,30,000/- and submitted his claim form to the first opponent on 9/3/2-016, disclosing all the particulars of the accident along with necessary documents.
5. It is contended by the complainant that the first opponent took the custody of the damaged vehicle and sold it as a scrap for Rs. 65,000/-to one of the scrap dealer who was summoned by the first opponent to the premises of M/s. Adishakti Cars. Out of the said amount Rs.45,000/- was directly paid to the complainant by way of cash and remaining Rs.20,000/- was retained by the first opponent who assured the complainant that the same would be paid at the time of final settlement. Thus, the complainant claims that the first opponent has under obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- to him (3,30,000-40,000).
6. It is the further case of the complainant that on 12/4/2016 the first opponent got issued a letter to the complainant wherein it is stated that the driver of the vehicle involved in accident did not have a driving license and requested the complainant to produce the original driving license of the driver Raghavendra R., for verification. The complainant was shocked on seeing this letter because all the particulars of the driving license were noted by the surveyor and the document were also collected. The complainant however personally visited the office of the opponent and submitted all the relevant documents. The complainant after waiting for some more time when did not get any response from the C.C.No.2/2017 4 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 first opponent got issued a notice through his counsel on 12/7/2016. The first opponent wrote another letter dated: 28/7/2016 in which the complainant was informed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated for the reason that the driver of the car involved in the accident had no valid driving license as on the date of accident. It is further stated in the letter that the driver of the car had bearing No. KA/1420090000965 was valid upto 5/9/2015 for LMV cab and it was renewed from 10/3/2016 to 9/3/2019. All efforts made by the complainant to convince the first opponent about the validity of the driving license of Raghavendra failed. Hence this complaint.
7. There are two opponents in this case. After admitting the complaint when the notice was issued to the opponents, both the opponents have entered appearance through their respective advocates and filed separate versions.
8. The opponent No.1 in the version filed has admitted that a luxury taxi bearing No. KA/14/B 0891 which belonged to the complainant was covered under the policy of insurance issued by the first opponent and the same was valid from 6/4/2015 to 5/4/2015 and the same is subject to the various terms, conditions, limitations and exceptions as detailed in the policy. With regard to the scheme under which the vehicle was purchased as averred para-2 of the complaint is stated to be not within the knowledge of the opponent NO.1.
9. The first opponent has contended that the intimation that the said vehicle met with an accident on 9/3/2016 has suffered damages was received. On the receipt of the same Mr. L.S.Mohankumar of Hassan was deputed to hold the survey. He has conducted the survey and filed the survey report. It is denied that the company has put up the scrap for sale and sold the same for Rs.65,000/-. It is also denied that the opponent No.1 is liable to pay 2,85,000 to the complainant. C.C.No.2/2017 5 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018
10. It is the further contention of the opponent No.1 that the complainant on being called for had produced the driving license of the driver and also the documents pertaining to the vehicle. On verification it was found that Sri. Raghavendra R., had a license bearing No. KA/14/2009000965 to drive LMV transport i.e,. Luxury taxi during the period from 7/9/2009 to 6/9/2012 and subsequently it was renewed for the period from 10/3/2016 to 9/3/2019. Thus, it is contended that on the date of the accident the driver Raghavendra had no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. i.e. Transport Vehicle. Thus it is contended that Raghavendra did not had valid and effective driving license to drive that vehicle on the date of accident. It is further stated that fully knowing that the driving license of Raghavendra had lapsed, the complainant entrusted the vehicle to him who is unauthorized and unlicensed driver and thus committed specific breach of the policy conditions. There is obligation and responsibility on the owner to verify the DL and entrust the vehicle to a duly licensed driver holding an effective DL. Since the owner did not produce the valid and effective driving license the first opponent has repudiated the claim.
11. Without prejudice to the above said contentions the first opponent has submitted that the repairers have submitted an estimate of repairs at Rs.4,37,637/- the surveyor L.S.Mohankumar assessed the loss at Rs. 3,54,416/- as the cost of the repair is more than 75% of the IDV the surveyor has assessed the damages at Rs. 2,64,500/- under salvage method 2,74,500/- under total loss with RC, 2,94,500/- under total loss without RC. This assessment of damages is subject to the policy conditions. The first opponent submits that since the complainant has brought his claim under total loss with RC liability it shall not exceeded Rs.2,74,500/-. It is contended that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. The claim for interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is not tenable under law. Hence prays for dismissing the complaint. C.C.No.2/2017 6 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018
12. The 2nd opponent Canara Bank has filed a separate version contending as under:- The complainant theory of availing loan from the opponent No.2 bank under the scheme for providing employment and upliftment of persons belonging to the weaker section for the purpose of self employment to run as a taxi in the year 2013 has been admitted. It is also admitted that the vehicle insured with the first opponent and the premium was being regularly debited from the loan account of the complainant. The policy which was valid upto 5/4/2016 with the declared value of the vehicle at Rs. 3,60,000/- is also admitted. With regard to the averment in para No.3 of the complaint the 2nd opponent claims no knowledge. The 2nd opponent also claims no knowledge with regard to the survey conducted by L.S.Mohankumar. The averments in para 4 of the complaint about the sale of the car by the first opponent to a scrap dealer for Rs. 65,000 etc., are all not stated to be within the knowledge of the complainant. So also the 2nd opponent claims no knowledge about the other averments in para 5 of the complaint.
13. It is contended that the 2nd opponent is a financial institution which had advanced loan for the purchase of the motor vehicle to the complainant and the said loan is still outstanding. It is contended that the complainant is not the consumer under the 2nd opponent. According to the 2nd opponent the complainant is due in a sum of Rs. 2,50,343-27/- with interest charged upto as on 31/1/2017. The complainant is liable to discharge the same. The first opponent is having obligation to pay all the claims arising out of the said policy to the 2nd opponent. Hence prays for allowing the same and also prays for dismissing the complaint against opponent No.2.
14. When the case was set down for recording evidence the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 he filed his affidavit as a part of his evidence and also got Ex.P-1 to P-4. He was cross examined C.C.No.2/2017 7 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 by the advocate for the opponent No.1 and Ex.R-4 and R-5 came to be marked.
15. The complainant has got examined one Sri. Usman as PW-2 he has filed his affidavit as a part of his evidence and who was also cross examined by the advocate for the 2nd opponent.
16. Heard the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for the both sides.
17. The points that arise for our determination are:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponent No.1?
2. Whether the complainant proves that he is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?
3. What order?
18. Our findings on the above points are:- Point No.1:- In the Affirmative. Point No.2:- Partly in the Affirmative. Point No.3:- As per the final order. -:REASONS:-
19. Point No.1:- This complaint is filed by Ranganath R., seeking direction to the opponents to pay a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- out of 3,30,000/- after deducting Rs.45,000/- being the salvage value along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of claim i.e, on 9/3/2016 till the date of entire payment and also Rs.25,000/- towards damages, loss hardship and inconvenience and further sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
20. In this case the first opponent is the Insurance Company. The undisputed facts of this case are that the vehicle in question bearing No. KA/14/B/0891 a luxury taxi belonging to the complainant. It is also admitted that the said vehicle had a valid insurance obtained from the first opponent which covered the period from 6/4/2015 to 5/4/2016. The C.C.No.2/2017 8 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 date on which the vehicle said to have met with an accident was on 8/3/2016 is not seriously disputed. The first opponent has also admitted that on the receipt of the intimation with regard to accident one Mr.
L.S.Mohankumar of Hassan was deputed as a surveyor. Accordingly he inspected the accident vehicle and submitted a report.
21. We have the evidence of the complainant Ranganath R., in the form of an affidavit in which all the complaint averments have been reproduced. The 1st opponent does not deny the claim made by the complainant for compensation on account of the damage caused to the car.
22. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of accident his brother by name Raghavendra was driving the car and that he had a valid and effective driving license. On the receipt of the claim, the opponent No.1 processed it and repudiated the claim.
23. The undisputed facts of this case are that the vehicle bearing No. KA/14/B0891 is a luxury taxi belonging to the complainant and thus it is a transport vehicle. The opponent No.1 does not deny that the intimation was given to it by the complainant about the accident with which the said vehicle met on 8/3/2016. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle had an insurance cover issued by opponent No.1 which was valid from 6/4/2015 to 5/4/2015. Regarding the survey conducted by
L.S.Mohankumar is not in dispute. The fact that the car was being driven by Sri. Raghavendra R., the younger brother of the complainant is the case of the complainant i.e., also not disputed.
24. The only ground upon which the claim has been repudiated by the opponent is that the driver did not have a valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle i.e., the vehicle in question on the material date, time and place. C.C.No.2/2017 9 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018
25. The complainant Ranganath R., got himself examined as PW-1. His affidavit filed as a part of his examination in chief is nothing but the repetition of the averments made in the complaint about which the narration has already been made above. In the cross examination made by opponent No.1 the complainant has admitted that he is using the said vehicle as a transport vehicle. He has also admitted that the vehicle which he purchased was a luxury taxi of a new model and was being used by him to earn livelihood by letting it out for hire. He had permit for running the said vehicle throughout the State of Karnataka and he was issued a badge as it was a Transport Vehicle. The claim intimation letter is as per Ex.R-2 and the claim form is Ex.R-3. They have also been admitted by PW-1.
26. It is not in dispute that on the material date, time and place when the accident occurred i.e., on 8/3/2016 the vehicle was being driven by Raghavendra R., who is the younger brother of the complainant and the complainant was also there in the car. On account of the accident the vehicle was severely damaged which is also not seriously disputed and the same is reflected by the report of Sri. L.S.Mohankumar a surveyor, loss assessor and valuer appointed by opponent No.1 who inspected the vehicle and submitted the report which is produced by opponent NO.1 himself and marked as Ex.R-7. As per this document the net approximate loss on account of the damages caused to the vehicle was 3,48,000/-. The claim made by the complainant with the opponent No.1 was repudiated only on the ground that the certified copy of the driving license of Mr. Raghavendra R., produced by the complainant shows that the driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the LMV cab i.e., the transport vehicle as on the date of accident. The fact that the said vehicle had a valid driving license to drive the said transport vehicle initially upto 5/9/2015 and subsequently it was renewed from 10/3/2016 to 9/3/2019 is not in dispute. So, it is evident that between 6/9/2015 and 9/3/2016 the driver Raghavendra R., who is the younger C.C.No.2/2017 10 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 brother of the complainant, did not have a driving license to drive the transport vehicle like the one involved in this case. But it is undisputed that Sri. Raghavendra R., had a valid and effective driving license to drive the said car as a non transport vehicle till 7/10/2029. These aspects are also clearly evident from the reading of Ex.R-4 and R-5 which are the copies of the driving license of Raghavendra got marked by the opponent through the complainant PW-1. So, from this it is clear that Raghavendra R., had a valid and effective DL to drive a non transport vehicle, as on the date of the accident and till 7/10/2029. So the short point for our consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim made by the opponent only on the ground that Raghavendra R., did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive a transport LMV, can though he had a valid driving license to drive a non transport LMV was just and proper.
27. The learned advocate appearing for the opponent drawing our attention to the various provisions of the motor vehicles act contended that the repudiation of the claim was proper because the driver did not have valid driving license to drive the transport LMV vehicle. To substantiate the same the learned advocate has relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2008 Karnataka MAC 657 in Rambabu Tiwari V/s United India Insurance Co., Ltd and others. In that judgment of the Honble Supreme court it is held that according to the provisions of section 15(1) of the motor vehicles Act the driving license must be renewed within 30 days after the date of expiry of the said license. On the same preposition the learned counsel has also relied yet another decision of Honble supreme court reported in 2009 Karnataka MAC 331 in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., V/s Angad Kol and others.
28. The leaned counsel for the opponent has referred to a decision in New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V/s Prabulal reported in 2008 ACJ 627 to contend that a driver of a vehicle who had a license to drive light motor C.C.No.2/2017 11 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 vehicle if found driving a heavy motor vehicle and meets with an accident then the insurance company is not liable to compensate. This decision of the Honble Supreme Court may not be applicable to the facts of the case. This is because in the reported decision the person who was driving the vehicle had license to drive light motor vehicle but he was found driving a different type of vehicle i.e, heavy motor vehicle. Whereas in the case on hand that is not the situation. The driver Raghavendra R., was driving the light motor vehicle only which was a transport vehicle though he did not have license to drive such class of vehicle. But he had a driving license to drive the same class of LMV non transport vehicle. Whether in such a situation the driving of such vehicle belonging to the same class would amount to breach of the policy condition or not is a matter which required to be considered. In this context, it may not be out of place to refer to a recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court Page 3668 in Mukund Devangan V/s Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. In this judgment of the Honble Supreme Court which is also relied on by the advocate for the complainant it has been held :- Light Motor vehicle as defied u/s 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) r/w section 2 (15) and section 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of light motor vehicle.
29. Section 2(21) defines light motor vehicle as a transport vehicle as omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question which is LMV cab is a light motor vehicle. No doubt the driver or Raghavendra did not have an endorsement made separately on the license required to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class also. But he had a valid license to drive the light motor vehicle till 2029. Of course, a non transport vehicle. In the above said judgment of the Honble supreme court referred to above it has been held that if a C.C.No.2/2017 12 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 person had a license to drive light motor vehicle no separate endorsement is required to drive a transport vehicle of LMV class. The relevant portion in the said judgment is that:- A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of light motor vehicle as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road- roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above.
30. In the aforesaid judgment to a question whether a driver who is having a license to drive light motor vehicle (as in this case) and is driving a transport vehicle of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, the Honble supreme court has held as under:- Plain and simple meaning has to be given to section 10(2). When the legislature has not amended the provision, the court cannot re- write the definition of Section 2(21) of light motor vehicle and section 10(2)(d) and full effect has to be given to the omission which has been made in the provisions of Section 10(2)(e) to (h), by substituting transport vehicle under Section 10(2)(e), and plain and literal interpretation of existing provisions and amended provisions has to be made. When the legislature has not amended the aforesaid provisions it is not for the Court to legislate by making insertion in Section 10(2)(e). What has not been provided in the statute with a purpose, cannot be supplied by the courts. Court has to construe a provision and not to act as a legislature. In other words, interpretation as suggested would mean rewriting of the provision, which is not permissible in the light of the aforesaid discussion. The Court cannot supply casus omissus.
31. Thus, the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court makes it very clear that a person who holds a valid driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle can drive Light Motors Vehicle though transport vehicle without there being any separate endorsement an Driving License to drive Transport Vehicle, because they belong to same class. C.C.No.2/2017 13 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018
32. In the light of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid latest decision the question of considering other citations referred to by the learned advocate for the opponent namely the citations in legal crystal 117306,1183021,1172976 does not arise.
33. Thus, the sum substance of the principles laid down in the latest decision of the Honble Supreme Court if applied to this case it can be stated that in the case on hand Raghavendra R., who was holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle which was valid as on the date of accident was also entitled to drive LMV transport vehicle since both belong to the same class of vehicle i.e, Light Motor Vehicle. Therefore, the act of the opponent No.1 in repudiating the claim of the complainant is not correct. It is improper and as a result the opponent No.1 has committed an act of deficiency in service towards the complainant. Accordingly we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.
34. Point No.2 & 3:- In the light of the discussion made above and the finding recorded on Point No.1 holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of opponent No.1, the next aspect to be now considered is whether the complainant is entitle for the relief claimed in the complaint. The complainant in the complaint has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- in all towards damages on total loss method. This is based on the Insured Declared Value as on the date of accident. The copy of the insurance policy which is available in the case file shows that the insured declared value of the vehicle as on the date of purchased the policy i.e., on 6/4/2015 was 3,60,000/-. Perhaps this is the first policy purchased by the complainant after purchasing the new vehicle. The loss assessor L.S.Mohankumar in his report Ex.R-7 produced by the opponent himself has shown Rs.3,30,000/- as the market value of the said car as on the date of accident. The complainant does not dispute this. On the other hand, the complainant has admitted C.C.No.2/2017 14 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 and consented to this. This is evident from the reading of the 2nd para of page No.2 of the deposition of the complainant and so also averred in the complaint at paragraph No.4 in page No.3. It is the case of the complainant that the salvage was auctioned by the opponent No.1 and a sum of Rs. 65,000/- was recovered from such auction sale. Out of that a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was directly paid to the complainant by the first opponent. The remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- was retained by the first opponent by assuring that it would be settled at the time of final settlement. Therefore, the complainant claims that he is entitled to receive 2,85,000/- (3,30,000-- 45,000) from the first opponent. These are the averments found in para-5 of the complaint and deposed to on oath by the complainant in his evidence. The opponent has denied this aspect in the version and also spoken to that effect in the evidence. But while cross examining PW1 the opponent has suggested to PW-1 that it was PW-1 who sold the salvages. That suggestion has been denied. This suggestion given is without any basis. In the sense there is no contention taken to that effect either in the version or in the evidence. PW-1 during cross examination has further made it clear that it was the surveyor who secured those persons to bid at the auction and sold the salvages for Rs. 65,000/-. Out of which he received only Rs.45,000/- from the purchaser and not Rs.65,000/- as suggested. So by giving the suggestion the opponent No.1 admits that the salvages were sold and a sum of Rs. 65,000/- was recovered and the entire money was taken away by the complainant and not only Rs.45,000/-. This admission is again contrary to the contention taken by the first opponent in the version. This shows that the opponent No.1 is hiding the truth.
35. To substantiate the case of the complainant with regard to the auctioning of the salvages he has examined one more witnesses by name Usman as PW-2. In the evidence PW-2 Usman has stated about the purchase of the damaged vehicle for Rs.65,000/- and also deposed out of that amount he paid Rs.45,000/- directly to Ranganath the complainant C.C.No.2/2017 15 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 as per the request of the Insurance Company. In the cross examination nothing much has been elicited by the opponent No.1 to discredit what PW-2 has stated in the examination in chief. It is also not made known by the opponent No.1 as to why PW-2 should come and depose falsehood against the opponent No.1. What special interest the PW-2 has towards complainant and animosity against opponent No.1. So, the evidence of PW-2 and coupled with the evidence of the complainant would clearly show that the complainant had received Rs.45,000/- from Usman who has purchased the damaged vehicle at the instance of the opponent No.1. Therefore, there appears to be some justification in the claim made by the complainant that he is entitled for only Rs.2,85,000/- (Rs.3,30,000-45,000).
36. The first opponent however in the version has pleaded that without prejudice to the other contentions taken in the version that his liability under the policy towards the complainant was the maximum of Rs.2,74,500/-. This has not been proved by the opponent No.1. On the other hand, the opponent has not shown as to why complainant is not entitle to receive Rs.2,85,000/-. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- from opponent No.1.
37. In addition to this the opponent No.1 is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards loss suffering and mental agony and Rs.3,000/- being the cost of litigation. The opponent No.1 shall make above said payment within 30 days from the date of intimation of this order together with interest at 8% p.a. on the said sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- from the date of repudiation till the date of actual payment.
38. The 2nd opponent in this case is Canara Bank, Holalur Branch Holalur Shimoga District. No doubt, in this case no relief is sought against the 2nd opponent. But, the complainant has arrayed 2nd opponent as the party in this case because he had purchased the taxi by availing C.C.No.2/2017 16 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 loan facility from the 2nd opponent bank. In para-8 of the complaint the complainant has specifically stated thus:- Though, no specific monitory claim is made by the complainant against the 2nd opponent, the 2nd opponent is made as a party as the Insurance claim amount with interest is to be credited to the loan account of the complainant.
39. From the above, it is clear that the complainant wants the opponent No.1 to remit the amount whatever that was payable to the complainant, directly to his vehicle loan account maintained with the 2nd opponent. In fact, the 2nd opponent bank who has filed version has also stated in paragraph No.10 of the version as under:- Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that if this Honble Court please to come to the conclusion to allow this complaint, this Honble Court may please to pass an order directing the 1st opponent to deposit the entire amount with the 2nd opponent to satisfy the complainants loan account. Notwithstanding the above, the complainant has also filed a memo on 25/1/2008 stating that whatever the money that is payable by the opponent No.1 may kindly be ordered to be remitted to the vehicle loan account of the complainant with the opponent No.2 bank. In the light of the above discussions we have no hesitation in holding that the opponent No.1 is directed to deposit whatever the amount that is payable to the complainant directly to the vehicle loan account of the complainant maintained with the 2nd opponent with notice to the complainant giving details of the same. With these observations, we answer Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following final order. -:ORDER:- The complaint filed by Sri. Ranganath R., u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is allowed in part. The complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Five Thousand only) from opponent C.C.No.2/2017 17 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 No.1 together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of actual payment. The complainant is also entitled to receive a further sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation from opponent No.1 towards loss, suffering and mental agony and a further sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards cost of litigation. The amount as ordered above which is payable by the first opponent to the complainant shall, instead of making payment to the complainant, the first opponent shall directly remit the said amount to the vehicle loan account of the complainant maintained with opponent No.2 under intimation to the complainant with full details. The opponent No.1 shall make payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint against opponent No.2 is hereby dismissed. (Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 29th day of January, 2018.) Sd/- Sd/- (K.M.Manjunatha) (D.R.Venkatasudarshan ) Member. President. //ANNEXURE// Witness examined for the complainant side: Complainant- Sri. Ranganath R.,S/o: Rangappa,Aged about 37 years, R/o: Hotehatti Village,Holalur Hobli,Shimoga Taluk has examined in chief as PW-1. PW-2- Sri. Usman, S/o: Mohammed Rehamathulla, aged about 28 years, Occ; Salvage and scrap merchant, R/o: New Mandli, Shivamogga city. Witness examined for the opponent side: Opponent- Sri.Rhitwik Radhan, S/o: Radhakrishna, Aged about 27 years, Occ; Asst. Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Co.ltd., R/o: Shimoga has examined in chief as RW1. RW-2- Sri. Subramanya S., S/o; Late Siddappa, Aged about 56 years, Occ; First Divisional Assistant, Office Deputy Commissioner for Transport and Senior RTO, Shivamogga. Documents marked for the complainant side: C.C.No.2/2017 18 Date of Filing:04/01/2017 Date of Disposal:29/01/2018 Ex.P-1- Copy of Driving License of the complainants brother. Ex.P-2- Copy of the Legal Notice Ex.P-3- Copy of the letter dated: 29/8/2016 Ex.P-4- Copy of the letter dated: 31/8/2016 Ex.P-5- Copy of Driving License of the complainant Documents marked for the opponent side: Ex.R-1-Statement of loan account of the complainant Ex.R-2- Copy of Claim Intimation Letter Ex.R-3- Copy of Motor Claim Form Ex.R-4- Xerox Copy of Driving License Ex.R-5- Xerox Copy of Driving License Ex.R-6- Copy of the Insurance Policy Ex.R-6(A)- Authorisation given by the RTO officer to the Consumer Forum, Shimoga Ex.R-7- Copy of Motor Final Survey Report Sd/- Sd/- (K.M.Manjunatha) (D.R. Venkatasudarshan ) Member President
Comments