BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 891/2011 against C.C.No.89/2009, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
Bandi Rajamallu, S/o.Mallaiah,
Aged 25 years, Occ:Agrl,
R/o.Goapalarao pet village of
Ramadugu Mandal of
Karimnagar District …Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited, 8-6-126, 1st floor,
Near Gandhi Statue Circle, Kothirampur,
Karimnagar, R/by it’s Branch Manager.
2. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited, G.E.Plaza, Airport Road,
Yerwada, Pune- 411 006,
R/ by it’s Manager. …Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.K.Venkateswarlu
Counsel for the respondents : Mr.N.Mohan Krishna
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member).
***
This appeal is directed against the order dt.18.2.2011 of the District Forum, Karimnagar made in C.C.No.89/2009 which is filed by the complainant to direct opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.13,09,257/- towards damage caused to the vehicle due to fire accident and to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- towards compensation towards mental agony etc.
For the sake of convenience the parties are described as they arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant purchased a combined Harvester i.e. New Holland Tractor-3630 TX with combined harvester for his livelihood. On 14.11.2008 at about 6 pm. after completion of part of the work, the complainant parked the Harvester in the paddy fields of one Karunakar Rao at Shakalla village and went to his room. On the next day at 6 a.m. , the said Karunakar Rao informed the complainant that his harvester was burning and smoke was coming out. Immediately, the complainant went there and found that the harvester completely burnt. The complainant obtained insurance policy covering own damage by paying total premium amount of Rs.18,387/- for indemnity of the said vehicle damage and the said policy was issued by opposite party no.1 on 26.9.2008 valid from 24.9.2008 to 23.9.2009.
On a complaint given by the complainant, the police, Gollapalli P.S. registered the case in Cr.No.126/2008 and after due investigation, they filed a final report stating that ‘ the accident occurred due to fire accident’.
Thereafter, the complainant informed the same to the opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 appointed a surveyor for assessing of the damage of the harvester. The surveyor came to the spot, took photographs and gave a report stating that the said harvester was completely damaged. The loss assessed by Adarsha Tractors Showroom , Karimnagar at Rs.13,09,257/-. The complainant kept the damaged Harvester in Adarsha Tractors at Karimnagar, the authroised service dealer, on the advise of the surveyor and till the date, the vehicle is in the custody of Adarsha Tractors, Karimnagar. The opposite party did not settle the claim even after survey which act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. The complainant sustained loss of earnings at Rs.10,000/- per day. Besides, the complainant was subjected to mental agony. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 28.3.2009. The opposite parties received the same, but neither settled the claim, nor gave any reply. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, opposite party insurance company filed counter/written version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute does not come under the purview of the consumer dispute, within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. That on receipt of the information about the burning of the harvester , the company has instructed the insurance surveyor and loss assessor by name B.Srinivas, who inspected the insured vehicle, took necessary photographs and as per the assessment, the loss was to the tune of Rs.3,28,198-50 ps. The opposite party insurance company was not informed, where the harvester was taken for repairs .Therefore the company in its letters dt. 25.5.2009 and 5.6.2009 asked the complainant to produce the harvester for re-inspection and to submit the original bills to enable the company to process/settle the claim. The insurance surveyor has also addressed a letter dt. 13.5.2009 to the complainant to produce the harvester for re-inspection and its salvage parts. But the complainant instead of complying with the request of the company and surveyor has filed the above complaint claiming an amount of Rs.19,09,257/- from the opposite party insurance company.
The opposite party insurance company, further, contended that it is not clear, whether the complainant got repaired the harvester or not. If the harvester is not repaired , then as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant will get 60% of the amount of net loss assessed by the surveyor on non standard basis. In order to settle the claim, the complainant has to repair the vehicle and submit the repair bills and also the vehicle must be placed for re-inspection . So that, proper liability can be assessed.
In the legal notice, it is alleged that Adarsha Tractors Show Room estimated the loss at Rs.13,09,257/-. The said estimate was neither sent to the company at any point of time, nor the same is filed with the complaint. However, the estimate, if any, is not binding on the company. Both the company and the complainant are bound by the assessment report of IRDA approved licensed surveyor and loss assessor. As the loss assessed by the surveyor is much less than 75% of the total sum assured, the complainant is not entitled for claim of Rs.13,09,257/- or Rs.10,000/- per day. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs to the opposite parties.
During the course of enquiry, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A30. As against this evidence, on behalf of the opposite parties, affidavit evidence was filed and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum fixed the damage caused to the harvester at Rs.6 lakhs and allowed the complaint, in part, directing the opposite parties to pay the said sum of Rs.6 lakhs towards the net loss caused to the harvester together with Rs.2000/- towards the costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Not satisfied with the said order, the complainant filed the above appeal contending that the District Forum failed to observe that the complainant could substantiate his case by filing necessary documents, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A30. That the District Forum ought to have awarded assured sum of Rs.12,29,147/- under Ex.A1 policy for own damages as to the harvester, but the Forum granted only Rs.6 lakhs. That the District Forum ought not to have reduced the claim of the complainant simply he could not produce any bills showing the amount for which he purchased the harvester and that the District Forum ought to have observed that the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed. Therefore the appeal may be allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the sum as prayed for in the complaint.
The opposite parties filed FAIA.2334/2012 in this appeal seeking permission to file and mark the photographs of the damaged vehicle taken at the time of final survey as exhibits. The petition was allowed. The set of three photographs are received and marked as Ex.B3.
We heard both sides.
Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant/complainant is entitled to all the amounts claimed in the complaint? If so, the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be modified?
It is not in dispute that the complainant is the owner of the Harvester and that the same was damaged in a fire accident which took place on 14.11.2008 at Shakalla village. It is also an admitted fact that the opposite party insurance company issued insurance coverage to the complainant for the harvester valid from 24.9.2008 to 23.9.2009. It is therefore, obvious that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The opposite party insurance company has not filed any appeal questioning the impugned order of the District Forum. The order therefore has become final against the insurance company. As stated above, having not satisfied with the amount awarded by the District Forum, the complainant preferred the above appeal. The District Forum discussed all the documents and facts and circumstances of the case and rightly came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.6 lakhs is considered to be just amount towards the repair charges of the damaged harvester and also for the new parts purchased for the harvester to make it road worthy. The complainant has not placed satisfactory evidence on record to direct the opposite parties to pay the amounts as claimed by him in the complaint. We do not find any material on record to interfere with the order of the District Forum and to award the claims made by the complainant in the complaint. Therefore the appeal fails.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, but there shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
Pm* MEMBER
Dt. 8.11.2012
