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, LADY MEMBER
Monday, 24th August 2015
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 40 / 2014
S. Sree Lakshmi, W/o Chinna Obula Reddy,
owner of the Innova car bearing Reg. No. AP 04 AF : 4977,
Resident of D.No. 17/345, Subbireddigari Street,
Proddatur – 516 360, Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Bhupal Hotel Complex, Post Box No. 33, Kurnool – 518 001.
2. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office at D.No. 7/1502, Korrapadu Road, Proddatur – 516 360.
3. The Manager, Sundaram Finance Co. Ltd.,
Upstairs on Union Bank of India, Jinna Road,
Proddatur – 516 360, Kadapa District. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 13-8-2015 in the presence of Sri J. Ravi, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for O.P1 and Sri S. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for O.P3 and O.P2 called absent on 15-10-2014 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- is submitted that the R1 is the Divisional Manager of R2. As the complainant has taken the insurance policy with the R2, both the respondents are added as parties to the complaint. The R3 is the financier to the complainant in purchasing the vehicle and the insurance premium has been paid through the R3, he is also necessary party to the proceedings and hence he is added as R3 in the above complaint.
3. The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Innova car bearing No. AP 04 AF : 4977 which was insured with the respondents company. The complainant has purchased the innova car bearing registration No. AP 04 AF : 4977 dt. 16-5-2011 with the financial assistance of M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd., Tirupati through its branch office at Proddatur who is the R34 in the present complaint. The R3 who is financier of the complainant has insured the complainant’s vehicle with respondents 1 & 2 company by paying premium to them. While at the time of payment of premium for the vehicle, the respondents have not stated to the complainant that the premium amount paid by R3 to the respondents 1 & 2 company to the vehicle of complainant is full or part amount. After taking the premium from the R3 the respondents 1 & 2 have issued insurance policy number to the complainant vehicle bearing policy No. 433103/31/2013/106 and the period of policy commencing from 15-4-2012 to 16-4-2013. Unfortunately, the complainant’s vehicle was met an accident on 5-7-2012 at about 1.00 p.m near Murukkanchari bus stop within the limits of B5-Manavala Nagar police station, Tiruvallur District of Tamil Nadu State. Immediately one M. Abdul Rehaman has reported the accident information to concerned police station and the police have registered a case in crime no. 282/2012 and investigated.
4. The complainant further submits that the complainant has received the accident information immediately after the accident and it turn, the complainant has intimate3d the same to the respondents 1 and 2 for survey of the damages to the vehicle of the complainant. Then the R1 and R2 are advised the complainant to shift the accident vehicle to the nearest branch of Innova company for necessary repairs and assured to the complainant that, they would appoint their company surveyor for assessment of damages to the vehicle. Accordingly as per advise of R1 and R2 the complainant has shifted her vehicle to M/s Lanson Motors (P) Ltd., Ambattoor, Chennai for necessary repairs to the vehicle for road worthy. Later on the telephone information of R1 and R2 company the local surveyor of the company has inspected the vehicle on 10-7-2012 and received approximate value of the damaged parts of the accident vehicle. Later the company has repaired the vehicle to the road worthy by collecting the net amount of Rs. 4,44,354/- (Amendment carried out as per the orders in I.A. No. 2/2015 dt. 13-3-2015) from the complainant has handed over the vehicle to the company. The R1 and R2 company surveyor has surveyed the vehicle and prepared final survey report and sent the same to the R1 and R2 company for settlement of the claim. Later the complainant has made a claim with R1 and R2 company for own damages to the vehicle and both R1 and R2 have received the same from the complainant. In spite of lapse of one and half year, the R1 and R2 have not settled the claim of complainant in spite of repeated demands made by the complainant. The complainant has submitted the orginal bills FIR and other relevant documents sought by the respondents and there is no any wrong on the part of the complainant in submitting the claim form to the R1 and R2. For the reasons best known to the R1 and R2, they have failed either to settle the matter or to repudiate the claim of complainant on proper reasons. The complainant has whirled around the offices of R1 and R2 and personally met both of them on several occasion for settlement of the issue. But for the reasons best known to R1 and R2 they have failed to settle to the claim of complainant.
5. It is further submit that after several visits to the offices of R1 and R2 both of them have told to the complainant that the R3 has not paid full insurance to the company and so the matter is kept pending for settlement. Then the complainant immediately met the R3 and asked him about the payment full insurance to the vehicle of the complainant. The R3 told to the complainant that he already paid the amount as demanded by the R1 and R2 and took the policy from them. Further all the respondents have thrown burden on others and kept pending the settlement of policy of complainant. The respondents are very negligence in settlement of the claim of complainant and all the respondents are liable to pay the damages amount to the complainant. The negligent attitude of the respondents in settlement of claim of complainant goes to how that there is a deficiency of service and unfair practice on their part in settlement of the claim of complainant. Due to the negligent attitude of the respondents the complainant is suffering with mental agony and financial difficulty. Hence, all the respondents will be held responsible to pay compensation to the claimant along with the claim. Ultimately the complainant got issued a legal notice to the respondents 1 & 2 on 20-2-2014 and the same has been served to them. In spite of the legal notice the respondents kept mum and did not at least reply for the legal notice. The complainant has made full efforts for settlement of the issue but all the efforts of complainant are proved futile due to respondent’s irresponsible and negligent attitude. Having vexed upon the attitude of the respondents the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
6. Therefore, the complainant pray that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass order in favour of the complainant against the respondents for the following reliefs: (a) direct the respondents to pay the claim complainant for Rs. 4,44,354/- to the complainant with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. from 5-7-2012 to till realization, (b) direct the respondents to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and inconvenience caused to him and (c) direct the respondents to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of complaint and also direct for such other and further reliefs as such the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of dispute.
7. R1 filed counter that the complaint filed by the complainant is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on fats. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in this complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein by this respondents.
8. At the outset, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present complaint since her vehicle is under hypothecation to the financier / R3. So long the hypothecation continues the financier shall be the owner of the vehicle though the physical possession remains with the borrower / complainant. As such the financier / R3 shall be the complainant but not as the respondent as shown in the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini without prejudice to the above objection.
9. The allegations that the complainant has informed about the accident immediately after the accident and submitted all the documents to this respondent company and that her claim is not settled and that there is deficiency of service on the part of this respondent company etc., are utter false. The complainant has suppressed the material facts which led to non-settlement of her claim and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant did not approach the Hon’ble forum with clean hands.
10. The alleged accident occurred on 5-7-2012 at about 1.00 a.m in Tamil Nadu state within the jurisdiction of Manavalanagar police station, Thiruvallur District. The complainant at her own accord without intimating to the insurance company has shifted her vehicle to Lanson Motors pvt. Ltd., Ambattur, Tamil Nadu State for the alleged repairs and leisurely intimated about the accident on 9-7-2012. Thus the complainant deliberately avoided to have spot survey conducted by this respondent company which survey would have revealed the actual facts relating to the accident particularly the driver, driving license the persons travelling in the vehicle whether hired passengers or the vehicle was being used for personal use of the insured and such other aspects. The reason behind back of the said deliberate attempt by the complainant is as follows.
11. At the first instance, the complainant has informed / intimated to this respondent company that one M. Abdul Rehaman was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. But inspite of repeated requests made by this respondent company she did not submit the driving license of the said driver for more than one year of the period. But she submitted driving license of one U. Ashok stating that he was the driver of the vehicle when it is questioned by this respondent company, strangely the complainant has sent a letter dt. 21-7-2013 stating that previously she has informed and mentioned the driver as M. Abdul Rehaman but he is not the driver and he has taken the vehicle for this personal use and he is their family friend. Thus it is clear that the actual driver M. Abdul Rehaman did not have a valid driving license and as such another person by name U. Ashok is brought into picture. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is fraudulent and liable to be dismissed.
12. Though the complainant has made several allegations in the complaint against this respondent company deliberately has not stated about the above facts relating to change of driver’s name and about her letter dt. 21-7-2013 and deliberately did not file the said correspondence and tried to mislead the Hon’ble forum.
13. The allegations that there is a delay on the part of this respondent company in settling the claim inspite of submission of all the documents are thus utter false and blatant lie in view of the above facts given by this respondent company. It may also be observed that the complainant has thrown away the criminal case records like FIR etc., which are in Tamil language on the face of this respondents company and failed to submit their translated version. It is this respondent company who has got the translated version from a Notary, Chittoor.
14. Therefore, the alleged latches in settling the claim or on the part of the complainant but not on the part of this respondents company. The complainant herself is at fault and it is settled law that “No one is held a responsible for one’s own wrong”. The allegations that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 3,76,337/- to Lanson Motors Pvt. Ltd., for the repairs of the vehicle is utter false.
15. There are no bonafides in the present complaint filed by the complainant. This respondent reserves the right to file additional counter, if any, if new facts come to its notice or advised so at a later stage. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the compliant with costs in the interest of justice.
16. R3 field a counter that the complaint filed the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint must prove all the allegations which are not expressly admitted by this respondent.
17. The R3 submitted that the allegations made in para – 3 to 6 of the complainant is not binding on this R3 and the respondent is not at all a necessary party to this case and unnecessary joined the R3 for illegal gain. The R3 paid premium to the complainant vehicle innova policy No. 433103/31/2013/106 and the period of policy commencing from 15-4-2012 to 16-4-2013 and the accident occurred when the policy is infoce as such this respondent is not at all liable for any damages or deficiency of service from other respondents. When the vehicle was indemnified by the respondents 1 & 2 the R3 is not at all liable for any damages.
18. The R3 submitted that it is utter false to state that the R3 has not paid full insurance to the company and so the matter is kept pending fro settlement. Then the complainant immediately met the R3 and asked him about the payment of full insurance to the vehicle of the complainant. The R3 told to the complainant that, he already paid the amount as demanded by the R1 and R2 and took the policy from them”. The R3 submitted that there is no negligent on the part of this respondent in settling the claim by the other respondents as such the claim against this respondent may be dismissed with costs.
19. R2 called absent and set exparte on 15-10-2014.
20. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by her or not?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents or not?
- To what relief?
21. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A12 were marked and on behalf of the Respondent No.1 Exs. B1 & Ex. B2 were marked.
22. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is true from the complaint and counters filed by R1 and R3 that the complainant has purchased Innova vehicle bearing Reg. No. AP 04 AF 4977 on 16-5-2011. The vehicle was financed by M/s Sundaram Finance Co. Ltd., i.e. R3, the R3 who is the financier of the complainant has insured the complainant’s vehicle with the respondents 1 & 2, insurance policy bearing No. 433103/31/2013/106 commences from 15-4-2012 to 16-4-2013. It is very clear from Ex. A1 and A2, the complainant’s vehicle met with accident on 5-7-2012 at about 1.00 p.m near Murukkanchari bus stop within the limits of B5-Manavalanagar police station, Tiruvallur District of Tamil Nadu State. It is clear from Ex. A3. After that the complainant had submitted the claim form under Ex. A4 to the R2. The complainant made repairs for her vehicle and paid bill under Ex. A5. Ex. A7 clearly shows the surveyors report for Rs. 3,02,343/-, will be the insurer liability. Ex. A10 is the driving license for the driver dt. 20-5-2008. When the vehicle met with an accident the policy was inforce. After the accident the complainant had submitted claim form under Ex. A4. It is the bounded duty of the respondents 1 & 2 to settle the claim of the complainant, as the policy was inforce at the time of accident. As the R3 paid premium amount at the time of purchase of the vehicle it is bounded duty of the respondents 1 & 2 to settle the claim of the complainant’s damaged vehicle. Here it is very clear that there is deficiency of service and gross negligence on the part of the respondents 1 & 2 in settling the claim of the complainant. So the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by her proved with the documentary evidence filed by her. At the same time there is no liability on the part of the R3 as respondents 1 & 2 are the insurers but not R3. R3 is only financer to the vehicle.
23. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,02,343/- (Rupees three lakhs two thousand and three hundred and forty three only) towards damages of the vehicle with 9% interest from the date of filling of the complaint, pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of the complaint within 45 days of date of receipt of orders. Case against R3 is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 24th August 2015.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Opposite parties : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 P/c of policy certificate.
Ex. A2 P/c of registration certificate.
Ex. A3 P/c of First Information report.
Ex. A4 P/c of claim form.
Ex. A5 P/c of final bill dt. 27-7-2012.
Ex. A6 Office copy of legal notice dt. 20-2-2014 and 2 acknowledgements.
Ex. A7 P/c of bill verification of surveyors, dt. 20-8-2012.
Ex. A8 P/c of motor (final) survey report dt. 20-8-202.
Ex. A9 P/c of re-inspection report of surveyors dt. 20-8-2012.
Ex. A10 P/c of driving license dt. 20-5-2008.
Ex. A11 P/c of intimate letter dt. 9-7-2012.
Ex. A12 Office copy of postal acknowledgements and postal receipts 2 numbers.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties :–
Ex. B1 P/c of letter of complainant to the Branch Manager, Oriental insurance Co.
Ld., Proddatur, dt. 21-7-2013.
Ex. B2 P/c of letter of G. Ramesh, Advocate & Notary to the Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Proddatur, dt. 23-7-2012.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri J. Ravi, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for O.P.1.
- Sri S. Nagi Reddy, Advocate for O.P.2
- The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office at D.No. 7/1502, Korrapadu Road,
Proddatur – 516 360
B.V.P.
