BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.950 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.104 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM ADILABAD
Between:
1. Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by is Managing Director
10003-E-8, EPIP RIICO,
Industrial Area, Sitapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-022
2. Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by it’s Branch Manager
D.No.10-03-56/4/1, 1st Floor
East Marredpally, Secunderabad
Appellants/opposite parties Nos.1 & 2
A N D
1. Siraj Pasha S/o Mohd Mansoor
Age 35 years, Occ: Owner of Indica Car
Bearing No.AP-28-V-5901
R/o H.No.2-7-229, Old Colony
Sirpur Kagaznagar, Adilabad Dist
Respondent/ complainant
2. The Shriam City Union Ltd.,
rep. by its Br. Manager, Branch Office
D.No.6-722, Mancherial, Adilabad Dist.-001
Respondent/opposite party no.3
Counsel for the Appellant M/s K.Maheswar Rao
Counsel for the Respondent M/s T.Roshi Reddy (R1)
M/s KRR Associates (R2)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/C PRESIDENT
&
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants. The brief averments of the complaint are that the respondent no.1 insured the car bearing No.AP-28-V-5901 with the respondent no.2 under policy No.4175052/31/11/001560 and valid from 3.5.2010 to 4.5.20111. The vehicle met with an accident on 14.5.2010 when the driver of the vehicle proceeding from Kagaznagar towards Asifabad resulting which the vehicle was completely damaged. A case was registered by the Police Asifabad. The appellants appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.1,14,000/- and did not settle the claim.
2. The appellants and the respondent no.2 resisted the case contending that the respondent no.1 did not produce the fitness certificate when asked by the surveyor vide letters dated 6.10.2010 and 29.9.2011 and subsequently the appellants closed file and informed the same by their letter dated 25.10.2010. The appellants have appointed the surveyor and as per the motor final surveyor report, liability of the underwriters on cash loss basis if considered is only `28,125/- after depreciation and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The respondent no.1 filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the appellants and the respondent no.2 neither affidavit nor documents are filed.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to pay an amount of `1,19,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a., and costs of `500/-.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed the appeal contending that the respondent no.1 failed to produce the fitness certificate of the vehicle to the appellant and consequently the insurance company closed the file and informed the same to the respondent no.1 vide its letter dated 25.10.2010 and that the District Forum erred in relying on the photo copy of Panchanama Report dated 17.5.2010 and there is no explanation for not filing the original panchanama report.
6. The point for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to the sum assured in terms of the insurance policy?
7. There is no dispute of the fact that the respondent is the owner of the Indica bearing registration number AP 28-V-5901 and he had got insured the car with the appellant-insurance company through the second respondent–company for the period from 03.05.2010 to 04.05.2011 for the sum assured of Rs.1,15,000/-. It is not disputed that the car met with an accident on 14.05.2010 while it was proceeding from Kagaznagar to Asifabad and in the accident the car got damaged and the Police, Asifabad conducted panchanama as also the surveyor deputed by the appellant-insurance company assessed the loss caused to the vehicle to the tune of `1,14,000/-.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Forum erred in considering photocopy of panchanama holds no water in the absence of any objection raised before the District Forum. The appellant has not disputed the occurrence of the accident involving the insured car as also the panchanama prepared in regard therefor. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the District Forum has merely reiterated the pleadings and it has not decided the dispute by applying the settled legal principles.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as the respondent failed to submit the fitness certificate of the vehicle and the action of closure of the claim cannot be construed as deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-insurance company. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent had not obtained the fitness certificate nor it is the case of the appellant that the fitness certificate obtained by the respondent was expired and the respondent has been plying the vehicle without there being any valid fitness certificate of the vehicle.
10. The claim was closed on the mere premise that the respondent failed to submit the fitness certificate of the vehicle. It is not difficult for the appellant to apply for copy of fitness certificate to the registering authority concerned and thereafter come to conclusion as to settle or repudiate the claim. At the cost of the repetition we may say that the appellant has not disputed issuance of and validity of fitness certificate of the insured car. However, the appellant’s closing the claim by itself does not absolve the respondent from his obligation of producing the fitness certificate for the purpose of processing the claim.
11. Taking into consideration of the latches on the part of the both parties, we are inclined to hold that the claim can be settled on non-standard basis. The surveyor estimated the loss caused to the vehicle at `1,14,000/-. 3/4th of `1,14,000/- would be `85,500/-. Thus, accordingly the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum. The appellant/opposite party no.1and 2 are directed to pay an amount of `85,500/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment together with costs of `3,000/-. There shall be no separate order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
I/C PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Dt.29.11.2013
కె.ఎం.కె.*
