BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABADF.A.No.543 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.41 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-I, CHITTOOR.
Between:
ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company
Rep. by its Branch Manager, Having office
At Tirupathi, Chittoor District. Appellant/
O.P 3
A N D
1. C.Sunandana Reddy W/o.C.Ramakrishna Reddy
Hindu, aged about 72 years, residing at
D.No.2-1957, sunandana Nivas,
V.C.Reddynagar, Piler-517 214.
Chittoor District.
2. M.G.Brothers Automobiles (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager, Having office at
Plot No.254, Autonagar, Near
Vinayakatemple, Renigunta Road,
Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
3. Tata Finance Limited, rep. by its Manager,
Having office at Autonagar, Near Vinayaka
Temple, Renigunta road, Tirupathi,
Chittoor District.
4. M.G.Brothers Limited, rep. by its Managing
Director, office by the side of Somasila-SES office,
Trunk Road, Nellore Town and District.
5. TATA Motors Passenger Car Business Unit
Rep. by its Executive Director
Office at KD-03, car plant, Sector 15 and 15A
PCNTDA, Chikkali, Pune 410 501.
Maharashtra. Respondents/
Complainant & OP 1 to
3 & 5
Counsel for the Appellant M/s Ravi Shankar Jandhyala
Counsel for the Respondents M/s K.Yadagiri Reddy-R1
M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao-R2 & R4
R3 & R5 served.
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/c.President.
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c. President)
***
The opposite party No.3 is the appellant.
The complainant filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties 1 to 5 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and also for a direction to the opposite parties 1 to 5 to deliver the car in road worthy condition and costs.
The case of complaint is that her son by name Sivananda Reddy purchased the car bearing No. AP 03 AA 7450 from the first opposite party under financial arrangement with 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is under the control and management of 5th opposite party. The complainant submitted that her son was promptly paying the instalments and on 01—5-2008 the car met with an accident near Sattivaripalem cross on Piler-Tirupathi road and the vehicle was brought to second opposite party for effecting repairs and on 19-5-2008 the son of the complainant died. The complainant being the mother of the deceased and legal heir made correspondence with the opposite parties as the wife of the deceased left the matrimonial home.
The complainant submitted that her husband wrote a letter to the second opposite party informing the death and paid Rs.43,500/- being the instalment due and informed not to encash the post dated cheques given by the deceased. The complainant submitted that there are no dues of insurance premia payable to opposite party No.4 and it is duty bound to get the repairs effected as per the policy and has approved the estimation made by first opposite party. The complainant made repeated demands to get the vehicle repaired. The first opposite party avoided to perform its duty and deliver the vehicle. The complainant wrote letter on 04-9-2008 and got issued notice dated 22-5-2009 to first opposite party and demanded to deliver the vehicle and also made personal visits to first opposite party to get the vehicle repaired. The complainant submitted her husband wrote a letter on 01-10-2009 to the fourth opposite party and requested to settle the claim and requested to handover the vehicle after the vehicle was duly repaired and as there was no response, she alleged deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties.
The first opposite party filed written version admitting that the vehicle was handed over to it for effecting repairs and contended that they have completed all the formalities in the month of October, 2008 and denied that the fourth opposite party approved the estimate. The first opposite party submitted that they had spent an amount of Rs.4,32,036-21 ps which was not paid and therefore they could not deliver the vehicle. The first opposite party admitted receipt of notice dated 22-5-2009 addressed by the husband of the complainant and the husband of the complainant and the complainant’s another son were satisfied with the repairs that were effected and when they refused to take the vehicle by paying the money. Subsequently the opposite party No.1 addressed letters on 17-2-2010, 11-3-2010, 23-3-2010, 05-4-2010, 06-4-2010 requesting them to take the vehicle by paying the money, they refused and the opposite party No.1 got issued notice on 03-6-2010 which was returned unserved.
The first opposite party submitted that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties and the wife of the deceased is proper person for filing the complaint. The first opposite party submitted that the 4th opposite party agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,32,759/- to it for effecting repairs vide letter dated 30-12-2009 and opposite party No.4 has not paid the same nor the legal representatives of the deceased have paid the same and submitted that there is no deficiency in service.
The third opposite party filed memo adopting the written version of O.P.1.
The fourth opposite party filed written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable without adding the wife of the deceased as a party. It further contended that the accident took place at Piler and it is not having any branch office within the jurisdiction of the Forum and they are having offices at Tirupati, Nellore and Pune and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, it is liable to pay to the extent of damage occurred at the time of the accident and not any damages that occurred subsequent to the accident. The fourth opposite party further submitted that the complaint is filed beyond two years and is barred by law of limitation and also that the complainant has not filed succession certificate and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The fifth opposite party filed written version resisting the complaint. It contended that there was no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on its part. It further contended that the complaint is not maintainable without impleading the other legal representatives i.e. wife of the deceased and they are residing outside the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint is filed beyond two years and is barred by law of limitation.
The second opposite party adopted the written version of opposite party No.5.
The complainant filed her affidavit and relied on Exs.A1 to A9, the A.G.M., of the first opposite party filed his affidavit , State Legal Head of OP.5 filed his affidavit, Legal Manager of 4th opposite party filed his affidavit and relied on Exs.B1 to B13.
The District Forum allowed the complaint directing opposite party No.4 to pay a sum of Rs.4,32,036.21 ps with interest at 12% p.a. from 01-9-2008 together with Rs.1 lakh towards damages, another sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards costs of depreciation of the vehicle and the complainant was directed to pay the amount due to opposite party No.1 and after receipt of the amount, the opposite party No.1 was directed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant and the District Forum further directed that if opposite party No.4 fails to pay the amount within 10 days, the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs shall also carry interest at 12% p.a. and costs of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party No.4 was directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to opposite party No.1. The case against opposite parties 1, 2, 3 and 5 was dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- each payable by the complainant.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No.4 preferred appeal contending that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the liability of the insurance company is restricted only on the date of accident and not for the subsequent period for the vehicle kept exposed to air, rain etc and for depreciation for more than two years.
The fourth opposite party contended that Ex.B13 dated 15-6-2010 issued by the surveyor indicates that he estimated an amount of Rs.1,95,543/- and the District Forum had gone wrong in allowing an amount of Rs.4,32,036.21 ps towards damages and holding it liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from 01-9-2008 and also awarding Rs. 1 lakh towards damages and depreciation and further awarding interest on Rs. 2 lakhs failing to pay the same within 10 days.
The opposite party No.4 further contended that Ex.B2 letter addressed by it shows that the claim was processed and an amount of Rs.2,32,759/- was stated to be borne by OP4 and the first opposite party was directed to collect the balance amount from the claimant and therefore submitted that there is no deficiency in service and prayed to allow the appeal.
The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from mis-appreciation of facts or law?
The facts beyond any dispute are that the respondent’s son, Shivananda Reddy during his life time purchased a Tata Indigo Excel Car bearing registration number AP 03AA 7450 in the month of April,2007 from the opposite party no.1. The second opposite party rendered financial assistance for purchase of the car. The car met with an accident on 01.05.2008 and it was extensively damaged in the accident occurred at Sathivaripalli on Piler –Tirupathi road and the car was towed to the opposite party no.1 for repairs on 03.05.2008 and the owner of the car died on 19.05.2008 and his wife left matrimonial home and settled at her parents’ house at Bellary in Karnataka.
It is not denied that the complainant’s husband addressed letter dated 09.07.2008 to the opposite party no.2 informing about the death of their son and paid EMI of Rs.43,500/- towards EMI which was outstanding amount on the death of the insured and he requested the opposite party no.2 not to present postdated cheques issued by her son.
The contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondent no.4 is not aware whether the son of the respondent no.1 purchased the vehicle on hire purchase agreement with the second respondent company and their liability is as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as on the date of occurrence of the accident and not subsequently to the date of the accident as at the workshop the vehicle was exposed to air and rain and for the damages and for depreciations the appellant insurance company cannot be liable to pay any amount to the first respondent.
The surveyor has assessed the amount towards loss caused to the vehicle at Rs.1,95,543/-. The fourth respondent has addressed letter to the effect the appellant insurance company will bear the expenses to the tune of Rs.2,32,759/-. The letter dated 30.12.2009 addressed to the second respondent by the appellant insurance company reads as under:
Dear Sir,
Kindly Release the Vehicle Registered in the name of Mr.C.Sivananda Reddy.
Reference claim # MOT01024264
The Liability for the above mentioned vehicle against your vehicle Invoice dated 30th Nov 2009 stands Rs.2,32,759/- which will be born by M/s ICICI Lombard GIC Limited and same will be released in your favour within next ten working days.
Kindly release the Vehicle by collecting Balance Amount from the customer.
Note: TDS will be deducted @ 2.24% on Liability Amount and Certificate will be issued at the end of the year.
In the teeth of its admission as to its liability of payment of Rs.2,32,759/-, the appellant insurance company cannot heard to say anything else that it is liable to pay compensation assessed by the surveyor. The surveyor’s report or any other document stated to have been not considered by the District Forum does not make any difference in the position in the light of the appellant submission to pay the amount of RS.2,32,759/- towards repairs of the vehicle to the second respondent.
The District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.4,32,036/- on the premise of inaction on the part of the appellant insurance company in processing the claim. However, either the surveyor or the letter addressed to the respondent no.2 by the appellant do not disclose the repair charges to the tune of Rs.4,32,036/-. It is true the vehicle was kept in the garage of the second respondent owing to non-settlement of the claim by the appellant. Equally, it is an admitted fact that the respondent no.1 has not taken any steps to pay the amount for release of the vehicle by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.1 cannot blame the appellant for the negligence on her part in taking steps for making payment of the repair charges to the respondent no.2.
For the aforementioned reasons we are of the considered view that the order of the District Forum granting compensation and depreciation charges to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and repair charges to the extent of Rs.4,32,036/- do not reflect the reasonable and justifiable quantum of the amount and they appear on higher side and as such the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified.
In the result the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum. The appellant/opposite party no.4 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,32,759/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The complaint against the opposite parties no.1, 2, 3 and 5 dismissed without costs.
Sd/-INCHARGE PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Dt.27-12-2013.
