STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 297 of 2016
AGAINST
CC No. 05 of 2015, DISTRICT FORUM, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Between :
- The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd
Shashiram complex, NH No.9,
Patancheru, Medak District.
- National Insurance Company Ltd
General Claims Hub, rep. by its Manager
No.5-8-588, 1st floor, Jubilee Building,
Near Abids, Nampally Station road,
Hyderabad – 500 001. ..Appellants/opposite parties
And
- M/s. Shivani Enterprises,
Rep. by Pandhare Shivaji,
Aged 40 years, occ: Business
R/o H.No.8-90/1, Opp. Sandvik Ltd
Muthangi Village, Pantancheru Mandal,
Medak District – 502 032.
- B. Niranjanappa, S/o Revappa,
Aged 35 years, Occ : Driver
R/o Maveen Halli, Bhali Taluq
Bidar District, Karnataka State
Presently R/o Patancheru Town and Mandal
Medak District ..Respondents/complainants
Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. K.Venkateswarlu.
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
Friday, the Sixteenth Day of February
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite parties to set aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 made in CC 05 of 2015 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Medak at Sanga Reddy.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainants, in brief, is that the complainant no. 1 is the owner of an Eicher insured vehicle bearing No. AP 23 Y-5418 and complainant no. 2 is the driver. On 07.01.2015, when the said vehicle met with an accident with another Eicher vehicle near Zaheerabad town, both the vehicles were damaged and the complainant no. 2 sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the other vehicle registered a complaint with PS, Zaheerabad against the complainant no. 2 and a charge sheet was filed on 28.01.2015.Complainant no. 2 underwent treatment at Panacea Meridian Hospitals at Beeramguda and incurred an expense of Rs.1,21,343/ for his treatment and was also advised rest, therefore he is not earning his monthly salary of Rs.10,000/. The complainant no. 2 is the only earning member in this family and the accident has caused him grave problems. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party and the complainant no. 1 submits that by paying the necessary premium of Rs.50/ his driver (i.e. complainant no. 2 – his employee) was also covered under, Workmen compensation to employee”. The accident took place while the policy was in force and despite several requests the opposite parties have not responded and hence the complaint to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ towards compensation along with costs and interest from date of accident till realization.
4). The opposite parties opposed the above complaint by way of written version contending that no accident took place involving the Eicher vehicle bearing no. AP 23 Y 5418. There was a delay of two days in registering the complaint with the concerned P.S. Moreover, the driver /owner of the other vehicle bearing no. TS 07 UA 0371 and the insurer are necessary parties and for non-joinder of necessary parties the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the complainants filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 and A-11 and the opposite parties filed evidence affidavit of one Gurbhej Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager ( legal) as RW.1 and got marked Ex. B-1. Both sides filed their respective written arguments and heard both of them.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to be liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,21,343/- towards medical expenses and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- within one month.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute while the second complainant is the driver of the Eicher vehicle bearing no. AP 23 Y-5418 and it met with an accident while he was driving the vehicle and he sustained injuries. There is also no dispute that the said vehicle was insured vide Ex.A-4 policy for the period from 10.01.2014 to midnight 09.01.2015 and it was in force when the accident had occurred on 07.01.2015. There is no dispute that Ex.A-1 is the FIR issued by Zaheerabad PS on the complaint of Mr. Murad Ali, the driver of the other Eicher vehicle bearing no. TS 07 UA 0371 against the second complainant. and Ex.A2 is the scene of Panchanama. Ex.A3 is the charge sheet against the complainant no. 2, wherein, it is mentioned that the accident occurred on 05.01.2015 and the complaint was lodged on 07.01.2015. The Eicher vehicle – AP 23 Y 5418 came from the opposite side and a buffalo came on the road suddenly and to avoid the buffalo, the complainant no. 2 lost control and hit the other Eicher vehicle. Due to the accident both the vehicles were damaged and the (complainant no. 2) accused sustained injuries.
11). The contention of the respondents/complainants is that in spite of repeated requests, the appellants’ Insurance company did not pay the medical expenses incurred by the second respondent/second complainant. On the other hand, the appellants Insurance company argued that no accident took place, the vehicle is not involved in the accident and the driver of the vehicle was not having valid subsisting driving license and the second respondent/second complainant himself has violated the conditions and further the vehicle is not insured with the appellants/opposite parties and further the medical bills are created.
12). The District Forum observed that the driver of the vehicle in question had valid driving licence and the policy was in force at the time of accident and the second respondent/second complainant submitted FIR and Panchanama to prove that the accident was caused to the second respondent/second complainant as well as to the vehicle in question and limit of the liability was Rs.7,50,000/-under the policy and as per the policy conditions the driver having a valid driving licence was entitled to be compensated and that the opposite parties failed to prove their above said allegations.
13). Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties argued that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction in view of the Section 75 of Employees Sate Insurance Act and that as per MV Act since the claim arising out of accident cannot be said to be in relation to any service hired or availed by consumer. As per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is not bar to adjudicate the matter by the Consumer Fora and hence the said contentions cannot be taken into account. Impleading of driver and owner of other colluded vehicle is not necessary in the complaint, since, the vehicle in question was damaged and it was insured and the claim was made for the same. The other contention of the appellants/opposite parties that the medical bills are fake and that the complainant has not examined any doctor and /or authors of the bills either in the open Court or by way of advocate Commissioner cannot be accepted since it is for them to prove by any cogent evidence by taking necessary steps but they failed to do so.
14). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the respondents/complainants and we do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. There are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
15). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 in CC 05 of 2015 passed by the District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT Dated : 16.02.2018.
