BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A. MEMBER
Monday, 20th April 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 38/ 2014
Chukka Krishnaiah, S/o Yellaiah,
D.No. 6/969-D-4-1, Nunevaripalli Main Road,
Rajempeta, Kadapa YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Branch Manager, 2nd floor, D.No. 19/6-7,
D.R. Mahal Road, Tirupati, Pin No. 517 501.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
General Manager, 570, Rectifier House,
Naigaum Cross Road, Wadala (W), Mumbai – 400 031.
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Branch Manager, Seven Roads Circle, BNR towers,
Kadapa city YSR District. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 15-4-2015 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for R2 and R1 & R3 called absent and set exparte on 8-10-2014 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 2,17,385/- towards repairs of insured vehicle along with interest @ 24% p.a. and to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant is the owner of Tavera Vehicle bearing No. AP 05 V : 8396. He insured the said vehicle with the respondents insurance company under policy No. 109000473940 for the period from 9-7-2009 to 8-7-2010. The said insurance policy covers his own damages also. While so, on 11-01-2010 the insured vehicle met with an accident near Bakarapeta Petrol Bunk, Sidhout Mandal, YSR District and badly damaged. The complainant informed the same to respondents 1 & 2 through respondent No. 3. The respondents deputed a surveyor by name L.C. Rami Reddy, who inspected the insured vehicle which was kept M/s Akbar Auto Mobiles, Nellore and repairs were effected and complainant has incurred Rs. 2,17,385/- and Akbar Auto Engineering works issued receipts to that effect on 13-3-2010. The surveyor deputed by the respondents recommended for settlement of the complainant’s claim at Rs. 71,272/-. But the respondents failed to settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant issued legal notice on 27-10-2011 to the respondents company at Hyderabad to settle his claim but still not settled. Thus the services of respondents are deficient in nature and they are liable to pay compensation and make good loss suffered by the complainant. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Respondents 1 & 3 remained exparte.
4. Respondent No. 2 filed counter resisting the claim of the complainant denying the allegations and called upon the complainant to prove all of them. It is further contended that the labiality of this respondent company is subject to strict compliance of Sec. 64 (v) (b) by the insured / owner. The complaint is not maintainable it hopelessly barred by limitation under C.P. Act. The alleged accident is dt. 11-1-2012 for which limitation expires on 11-1-2012. But the complaint was filed on 13-5-2014. Therefore, the complaint is barred by time and is liable to be dismissed. It is settled law that if the complainant is not satisfied with the surveyors report and disputing his findings the matter cannot be agitated before Consumer Forum but it should be settled through a Civil Court. There was no proper driving license to claim own damages to the driver. The complainant failed to submit registration certificate of the vehicle, driving license, fitness certificate and payment bills inspite of reminders by the R2. Hence, the claim was treated as closed. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complainant has not filed FIR, Charge sheet etc., documents. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed for?
- To what relief?
6. On behalf of the complainant, his affidavit as PW1 is filed as evidence and got marked Exs. A1 to A5 documents. On behalf of respondent No. 2 Ex. B1 was marked.
7. Heard arguments on both sides.
8. Point Nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that the claim of complainant is proved as per Exs. A1 to A5 that his vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages and got repaired and incurred Rs. 2,17,385/-. So he is entitled for damages from the respondents company as the policy was inforce on the date of accident i.e. 11-1-2010.
9. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that the complainant has not submitted any documents such as FIR, charge sheet to prove the accident and damage and no photos whatsoever, has been filed. Therefore, there is doubt with regard to the accident as pleaded by complainant. He further contended that the complaint is barred by limitation as the alleged accident was occurred on 11-1-2010 and the case was filed on 13-5-2014. The limitation was expired by 11-1-2012. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs.
10. There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for R2 insurance company. Though it is alleged by the complainant that his vehicle insured with R2 was met with accident on 11-1-2010. No record such as FIR, charge sheet or even if a petty case record filed by the police have been filed. No photos whatsoever, of the vehicle sustaining damage in the accident also not filed by the complainant. Though the surveyors report Ex. A5 was filed to show that the damages were estimated at Rs. 71,272/- but the same was denied by respondents. The documents required by R1 to settle the claim was not filed by the complainant even a final reminder issued on 12-11-2010, so there is negligence on the part of the complainant in making his claim.
11. Coming to the aspect of limitation of complaint is the alleged accident in this case was on 11-1-2010. As per section 24 (A) of C.P. Act the limitation for filing complaint is two years from the date of cause of action. The cause of action in this case is the date of accident i.e. on 11-1-2010. But the complaint was filed in this forum on 13-5-2014 claiming damages i.e. more than 4 years after cause of action. So the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant issued legal notice to the respondents on 27-10-2011. From that date onwards also the complainant has not filed the complaint within two years. So from that date also the complaint is barred by limitation. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed.
12. As seen from Ex. A1 the vehicle of the complainant was under hypothecation agreement with Kusalav Finance on the date of accident. The Kusalav Finance was not a party in the proceedings. The ownership of the vehicle vested with Kusalav Financier. In view of the above discussion since the complaint is filed more than 4 years after the cause of action, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents and the complainant is not entitled for the relief’s against the respondents as prayed. Accordingly, points 1 to 3 are answered against the complainant.
13. Point No. 4. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances no costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 20th April 2015
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant
PW1 C. Krishnaiah dt. 21-10-2014.
For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of insurance policy No.109000473940 issued by the respondents
Ex. A2 P/c of the cash receipts (eight in number) dt. 13-3-2010 for Rs. 2,17,385/- issued by Akbar Auto Engineering works, Autonagar, Nellore.
Ex. A3 P/c of Registration certificate of insurance vehicle.
Ex. A4 Legal notice dt. 27-10-2011 issued by the complainant to the claim manager of respondents company along with postal receipt dt. 28-10-2011.
Ex. A5 Motor – final survey report, dt. 31-3-2011.
Exhibits marked for Respondent No.2: -
Ex.B1 Copy of final reminder letter dt. 12-11-2010.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri D. Lakshminrayanana, Advocate for R2.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Branch Manager, 2nd floor, D.No. 19/6-7,
D.R. Mahal Road, Tirupati, Pin No. 517 501.
4) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Branch Manager, Seven Roads Circle, BNR towers,
Kadapa city YSR District
B.V.P.
