Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/85/2013

Paturu Ramesh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The General Manager M/s Shriram General Insurance Co Limited - Opp.Party(s)

N.Sreenivasulareddy

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                             Date of filing       :  21-06-2013

                                                            Date of disposal   :  31-08-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Monday, this the 31st day of AUGUST, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

 

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                          

                                     C.C.No.85/2013

 

Paturu Ramesh,

Son of Malakondaiah,

Hindu, aged about 28 years,

Business,

R/at: 26/1/802,

Sanghamitra School street,

Bhaktavatsala Nagar,

Nellore.                                                                             …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1. The General Manager,

M/s.Shriram General Insurance Co. Limited,

Head office-VIII, E-8,

R.I.I.Co.Industrial area

Sitapura

Jaipur, Rajasthan State – 302022.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

M/s.Shriram General Insurance Co., Limited,

C/o.M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Company Limited,

Indira Bhavan Road,

Upstairs of Bank of Baroda Building,

Nellore-524001.                                                     …            Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 25-08-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri  N.Sreenivasulu Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and  Sri P.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the  1^st opposite party and Sri Sk.Abdul Samad, advocate for the 2^nd opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

This consumer case is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.11,56,667/- to the complainant with interest at @9% p.a. from the date of submission of claim i.e.,            23-04-2013 till the date of payment, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to him towards damages for causing him mental agony and grant the costs of the complaint and pass such other and further reliefs as the Hon’ble consumer Forum may be pleased to deem it fit under the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice.

I       The factual matrix leading to filing of this Consumer Case is as stated as hereunder:-

 

(a)     It is the case of the complainant that he is the absolute owner of crop tiger combined harvester with combine no.07051353 and engine no.J02884714 insured with the opposite party no.2 at Nellore under the insurance policy bearing no.10008/44/13/000051 valid from 0.00 hrs of   4-03-2013 till midnight of 03-03-2014.  The employee of the 2^nd opposite party had collected necessary premium from the complainant and issued insurance policy at Nellore.  Hence, the Hon’ble Consumer Forum gets jurisdiction under section 11(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the part of cause of action arose at Nellore.

 

(b)   It is also further submitted by the complainant in para-4 of his complaint that the above said crop tiger harvester was carried in the mini lorry bearing registration no.AP26 X 3781 from Nellore to Rajahmundry and on enroot near chowltry centre, Gundayapalli (V) of Maddipadu (M) of Prakasam District on the N.H.-5 road on 18-04-2013 the said vehicle turned turtle while avoiding accident to a dog which suddenly crossed the road, resulting total damage to the said crop tiger.  On intimation to the opposite parties, they deputed the surveyor and loss assessor who inspected the same on the accident spot and also conducted final inspection at Auto Nagar, Nellore and he was submitted his report to the opposite parties.  The complainant had submitted the claim application to the opposite parties and the same was numbered as 10000/44/14/C/000005.  The photos and the C.D. showing the damage to the said vehicle are filed along with the complaint.  The said claim had been pending with the 2^nd opposite party till date without any reason since 23-04-2013. 

 

( c )    It is also submitted by the complainant in paras 5 and 6 of his complaint that he had obtained estimates of spares parts and engine for the said crop tiger from the M/s.Gold Fields, Nellore, M/s.Sri Kanaka Durga Auto Services, Nellore dated 22-04-2013 for Rs.9,88,347/- and Rs.88,310/- respectively and for tinkering works from M/s.K.G.N. Tinkering Works, Nellore, dated 23-04-2013 for Rs.80,000/- and submitted the same to the above said surveyor and the said surveyor had submitted the same to the 2^nd opposite party along with his report.  The Xerox copies of the same are filed and the same may be treated as part and parcel of this Consumer Case.  The driver-cum-Owner of the mini lorry (the said vehicle).  Gunji Penchalaiah, S/o.Chenchaiah, R/o.Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Nellore gave a declaration dated 23-04-2013 to the above said surveyor about the accident for the said vehicle and damaged caused to the crop tiger.  The Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddipadu, Prakasam District had issued a certificate dated 18-04-2013 with regard to the accident to the said mini lorry and damage to the crop tiger.

 

(d)     It is also further submitted by the complainant that the opposite parties are refusing to settle his claim for the reasons best known to the opposite parties inspite of repeated requests made by him.  As the opposite parties have not chosen to settle the claim, the complainant got issued registered lawyer notice dt.5-5-2013 requesting 1^st opposite party to pay the claim amount.  The opposite parties are neither took the necessary action nor settle the above mentioned claim so far. Thus, the opposite parties have committed negligence and deficiency of service in not settling the claim of the complainant within the reasonable time. Due to said act of negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant is put to lot of mental agony and physical sufferings for which they are liable to pay the damages and compensation in addition to the claim amount towards the above mentioned vehicle.

 

(e)  It is also further submitted by the complainant in para -8 of the his complaint  that  he availed finance of Rs.3,00,000/- from M/s.Sriram City Union Finance Company Ltd., and due to the total loss of the said crop tiger, he is unable to pay the instalments to the said finance company.  He had to pay Rs.12,333/- every month to the said finance company.   The opposite parties are liable to make good said loss also.  The said Finance Company is pressing for payment of instalments. 

 

(f)  There are causes of action to file this consumer case as narrated in   para-9 of the complaint.    Hence, the complaint.

 

II.    DEFENCE:

           The 1^st opposite party was resisted the complaint by filing a written version/counter dated 6-03-2014, denying the allegations of the complainant in the complaint. But the 2^nd opposite party was represented by the counsel and did not filed any separate written version inspite of several adjournments are granted by Forum. Those allegations are false and the complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts. 

 

 

 

The allegations of the 1^st opposite party against the complainant as they are mentioned in the written version

(i) It is submitted by the 1^st opposite party that in paras-3 and 4 of its written version/counter that the complainant had obtained the policy of the contractor Plant and Machinery Floater under Policy bearing No.10008/44/13/000051 valid from 04-03-3013 to 03-03-2014.  The liability of 1st opposite party is limited to the terms and conditions of the above said policy.  The 1^st opposite party was not aware of the accident of the said vehicle and also denied the other allegations against the 1^st opposite party as narrated by the complainant.  The complainant is put to strict proof of the same. 

 

(ii)  It is also further submitted by the 1^st opposite party in para – 5 of its written version/counter that the 1^st opposite party does not admit that it is the legal and bounded duty of the opposite parties to pay the claim amount, but in spite of several approaches and requests and submission of all required documents and all the opposite parties did not choose to settle the claim and due to that the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and also financial loss and non-payment of claim amount in spite of several days constitutes gross negligence and deficiency in service and hence the opposite parties are not only liable to pay the claim amount but also liable to pay damages to the complainant to a tune of Rs.20,000/- along with interest and so vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties the complainant got issued notice dated 02-08-2012 to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not comply with the request of the complainant so far and this complainant has approached the Hon’ble Forum for redressal of his grievance are false and the complainant is put strict proof of the same.

 

    (iii)     It is also submitted by the 1^st opposite party in paras – 6 and 7 of its written version/counter that as per the documents filed by the complainant which reveals that the complainant’s crop tiger was damaged while during the transit in the lorry bearing Reg.no.AP 26X3781 and while on the way the accident was took place at Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District as the Lorry driver cum owner was reported to the police and not intimated the same to this opposite party immediately.  This opposite party denied that the complainant has informed the damage of crop tiger intimation to this opposite party immediately after the incident.  The 1^st opposite party was not having any branch in Nellore Town and that the 1^st opposite party has not received any information with regard to the damage of crop tiger by the complainant and that the 1^st opposite party has received a claim form from him.  After receipt of the documents and after their scrutiny on 27-05-2013, this opposite party has issued a repudiation letter to the complainant stating that the alleged incident took place during the transit and it constitutes serious breach of conditions of the insurance policy.

 

        The policy in question is a contractor plant and machinery floater policy   covering  the risk of Harvester at the specified location.  The insured machinery got  damaged during transit while carried from Nellore to Rajahmundry by a lorry No.AP 26 X 3789.    I further submit that “As per Exception-H of the policy “Loss or damage whilst in transit, from one location to another location” is excluded.   I further submit that the cause of loss is very well supported and mentioned in the Survey Report page 3 under the ehad “Surveyor Comment” stating that “Under Exclusion condition Number 13-H of the CPM policy loss or damage whilst in transit, from one location to another location (Public Liability will not be payable while Contractors Plant & Machineries are on Public Roads) Claim occurred during transit, as per terms and condition of the CPM policy claim is not admissible.

 

CONDITIONS: This policy and the schedule shall be read together and any word or expression to which a specific meaning has been attached in any part of this policy or of the schedule shall bear the same meaning wherever it may appear.

      (h) loss of damage whilst in transit form one location to another location (public liability will not be payable while Contractors Plant & Machineries are on public roads.

 

(iv)    It is also further submitted by the opposite party in paras-8 and 9 of its written version that there is absolutely no deficiency in service and at no point of time, as alleged by the complainant that he has not intimated the incident in due course of time and that the crop tiger was damaged during transit and those said facts are not covered under the policy.  The complaint is  filed with all false allegations and without any intimation of the claim to the opposite party and the complainant is liable to pay exemplary costs a tune of  Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party and he has wasted valuable time of Hon’ble Consumer Forum by making a false claim.

 

(v)     In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite party is not to pay any reliefs prayed for to the complainant.   The opposite party prays the Hon’ble Forum may please to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

III.  The complainant has filed an affidavits as PW1 and PW2 and he has also filed his written arguments on 17-07-2015 before this Forum and the documents are marked on his behalf as Exs.A1 to A14, whereas the opposite parties had filed  documents which are marked as Exs.B1 to B3 and the 1^st opposite party filed an affidavit as RW1.  The 1^st opposite party has also filed written arguments on 13-08-2015 in support of its case.

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

 

(a)   Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

       parties towards the complainant?

(b)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

         prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

          (c)    To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2:

 

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint and documents filed herein. It is nothing but repetition of them once again.

 

Oral Submissions are by the learned counsel for the complainant:

     Sri N.Srinivasulu Reddy, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and his written arguments of  complainant may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments.  He has also further argued that the 1^st opposite party had collected necessary premium and thereby issued insurance policy at Nellore. The basic facts of the case are not disputed by the opposite parties.  As the opposite parties have not chosen to settle the claim of the complainant and the complainant got issued registered lawyer notice dated 05-05-2013 requesting the opposite parties to pay the claim amount, but the opposite parties have shown their deaf-ear.  The complainant has availed finance of Rs.3,00,000/- from M/s.Sreeram City Union Finance Company Limited and due to the total loss of the above said crop tiger, he was unable to pay the instalments to the said finance company.  The above said learned counsel has also further contended that the policy (Ex.A4) was in force on the date of the accident i.e., 18-04-2013 and the complainant is the owner of crop tiger combined harvester as per Exs.A1 to A3.  According to the Ex.A8 (Photos seven in numbers) and Ex.A10 Photo copy of Sales quotation issued by M/s.Gold   , Nellore relating to the cost of spare parts of the said vehicle are Rs.9,88,347/- and also Ex.A11 is relating to copy of estimation of Tata 497 SP Engine spare parts and their costs are Rs.88,310/- issued by M/s.Sri Kanaka Durga, Auto Service, Auto Nagar, Nellore and Ex.A12 is relating to photo copy of estimate receipt issued by M/s.K.G.N. Tinkering works, Nellore, amount is the Rs.80,000/-. Ex.A14 is certificate issued by Sub-Inspector of  Police Maddipadu (V), Prakasam District is relating to bad condition and damage of the said vehicle (paddy harvester).  The said learned counsel for the complainant has urged further that the facts of repairs of the said vehicle are alleged and established by the documentary evidence.  The report of the surveyor (Ex.B3) shows that the present cost of new vehicle is Rs.22,60,000/- and damaged vehicle is Rs.14,13,000/-.  The above said policy covered the risk of Rs.14,30,000/- and by collecting  yearly premium of Rs.20,099/- and the surveyor has not taken into account of total damage caused to the crop tiger.  Finally, the said learned counsel contended that Ex.B2 repudiation letter is not a valid one and there is a lot of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant and they are liable to pay compensation and damages to the complainant and the complaint may be allowed as prayed for. 

Oral Submissions are by the learned counsel for the opposite parties:

        On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party      Sri P.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy has also vehemently argued that its written version, affidavit and its written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments.  He has also further argued that as per the documents filed by the complainant, the said crop tiger was damaged while during the transit of the lorry and the accident was took place and the same was not intimated to the opposite party immediately and after receipt of the documents of the complainant and while their scrutiny on 27-05-2013, the first opposite party has issued a repudiated letter to him by stating that a serious breach of conditions of insurance policy. He has also further contended that the complaint is filed with false allegations and without any intimation of claim to the 1^st opposite party.  The policy in question is a contractor plant and machinery floater policy covering the risk of Harvester at the specified location.  The insured machinery got damaged during transit while carried from Nellore to Rajahmundry by a lorry No.AP 26 X 3789.  I further submit that “As per Exception-H of the policy “Loss or damage whilst in transit, from one location to another location” is excluded.   I further submit that the cause of loss is very well supported and mentioned in the Survey Report page 3 under the head “Surveyor Comment” stating that “Under Exclusion condition Number 13-H of the CPM policy loss or damage whilst in transit, from one location to another location (Public Liability will not be payable while contractors plant & machineries are on Public Roads) Claim occurred during transit, as per terms and condition of the CPM policy claim is not admissible.

 

CONDITIONS: This policy and the schedule shall be read together and any word or expression to which a specific meaning has been attached in any part of this policy or of the schedule shall bear the same meaning wherever it may appear.

      (h) loss of damage whilst in transit form one location to another location (public liability will not be payable while Contractors plant & machineries are on public roads. The contents of Survey report (Exs.B3) discloses that the loss estimation of Rs.72,173/- of the said vehicle but not the alleged claim amount.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  He has also prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- for filing a false and frivolous case against the first opposite party.

Forum’s Findings and observations

       Heard, the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the record very carefully. The nature of liability under the C.P.Act, 1986 is not strict liability but fault liability. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and produced their documentary evidence. Many cases are filed in respect of insurance claims.  Insurance contract is contract of utmost good faith. Complaint against deficiency in service is one of the crucial aspects of C.P.Act, 1986.

 

           Now, the core point is that under the said facts and circumstances of the case whether the complainant is entitled reliefs as prayed for in the complaint? In order to resolve dispute between the parties, the very concept of insurance may be looked into and its object for a decision.  The case is lingering on since 1 ½ years for various reasons which are beyond our control. 

  The concept of Insurance:

          Because of uncertainty of human life as well as perils/risks in trade or industry, insurance business had developed and is developing.  The concept of insurance coverage springs from the principle of indemnity.  The insurance company accepts the liability to indemnify the insured for the loss suffered by her/him due to peril against the consideration (premium) received by it.  But in actual practice, the insurer by showing mandatory provisions of rules and regulations framed by them in order to turn down the pleas of insured  while disbursing the valid claims of insured at their convenience.  Foundation of insurance contract is uberrima fides i.e., good faith and not fraud.  Insurer and insured must observe utmost good faith.  The duty of good faith is of a continuing nature.  In case of ambiguity or doubt in terms of the policy it should be interpreted in favour of the insured and against the company – LIC Vs.Rajkumar (1999) 3 SCC 465.

          While the Forum is excising sovereign function of dispensation of justice, it is worthwhile to remember once that the proceedings before the Consumer Fora are inquisitorial but not adversary.  The orders are required to pass in accordance with justice and equity on the basis of the evidence available on record.  Primarily, the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 is for the protection of the consumers and matters are required to be decided by having a rationale approach and non-technical one i.e., the mandate of law.  This is made clear in the case of Indian Photographic Co. Ltd. Vs. H.D.Shourie 1999(6) S.C.C.428.  Every case has to be judged on its own facts.

Relevant case law:

1.Insurance claim is to be settled within two months of submission of material documents, otherwise, the insured is entitled to interest @9% on the awarded claim amount – 2005 (2) CPR 640.

2. AIR 2001 SC 1213 – It was held that no court ought to base its decision on technicalities alone.

    3. Any insurance company has to pay the claim as per the terms of policy.

Delay in making payment of a claim has been simply held as deficiency in service.    Padmasri Tobacoo Co. Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., 2002(2) CPJ 96  (NC) and also 2002(3) CPJ 238 (NC) Consumer Forum is primarily would function on the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits.

4. In United India Assurance Vs. MKJ Corporation (1997) 5CTJ 649(SC), it was held that this principle is applicable to both the insured as well as insurer.  In Modern insulators Ltd. Vs.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. I (2000) CPJ1 = AIR 2000 SC1014 also, it was held that utmost good faith and disclosure of all material facts, is a duty of both the parties.  In Shri Umedilal Aggarwal Vs.K.K.Nagpal – I(1991) CPJ 169(NCDRC) it was held that failure to settle an insurance claim within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service.

    5.   Consumer For a can award  compensation as deemed proper, reasonable     

     and not as per   asking of complainant – 2011 (2) CPR 282 (NC).

 

    6.   Compensation or damages can be  awarded only, if complainant has suffered loss or  damages due to negligence of manufacturer or service provider  - 2011 (2) CPR 101     (NC).

    7.     Repeated deficiency in service of the service provider amounts to gross deficiency in it’s service for which the consumer has to be adequately compensated by it which reported in  2010 C.T.J. (N.C.) 1159.

About appreciation of evidence – It is a question of fact and each case has to be decided on the facts as they stand in that particular case.  We have bestowed our best of consideration to the rival submissions of the parties.

      

       According to final Surveyor’s report dt.4-5-2013 of opposite parties – the date of survey on 24-04-2013 and the date  of occurrence was on             18-4-2013, but as per report dt.17-05-2013 of libra surveyors Pvt.Ltd., Surveyor’s assessment recommendation to the opposite parties, is Rs.72,173/-. There is a variation of the figures in the said surveyor’s reports (Ex.B3).  It is contradictory with each other. There is a delay of 6 days of surveyor’s visit to the spot to verify the damaged vehicle but he visited the garage of Sri Kanaka Durga Auto Services, Auto nagar, Nellore where the repairs of the vehicle was done.  He did not express his clear cut opinion with regard to working condition of the paddy harvester, whether it is a total damage or not for the reasons best known to the opposite parties.  It is clearly appearing with a naked eye that there are so many corrections in the surveyor’s report (Ex.B3) and it creates doubt in our mind with regard to the date of inspection of said damaged vehicle by the said surveyor.  There are inconsistent statements and several corrections in the said survey report (Exs.B3).

    

       According to the complainant’s side, the total damage of the paddy harvester vehicle as per the photos (Ex.A8) and the bills submitted by him.  (Exs.A10 to 12) and the fact of damage of the vehicle is clearly established by the complainant by producing documentary evidence.   A certificate was also issued by the sub-inspector of police; Maddipadu P.S. Prakasam District (Ex.A14) with regard to the condition of paddy harvester was bad, supports the contentions of the complainant.  

 

   After scanning the entire material on record and considering the oral submissions of the said learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service and put the complainant to much mental worry and thereby caused irreparable loss to him.  We are convinced with the arguments of the said learned counsel for the complainant.  The opposite parties are miserably failed in their attempts and consequently they are liable to compensate adequately as mentioned in point No.3. These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, accordingly.

 

POINT NO.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,56,667/- (Rupees eleven lakhs fifty six thousand six hundred and sixty seven only) to the complainant with interest @9% p.a., from the date of the complaint i.e., 21-06-2013 till the date of the realization and also to pay him for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards the damages for his mental agony and also to pay him Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards the costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 31st day of August,              2015.    

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1       PW2

04-02-2015       04-02-2015

:       :

Paturu Ramesh, Son of Malakondaiah, Hindu, aged about 28 years, Business, R/at: 26/1/802, Sanghamitra.   Gunji Penchalaiah, S/o.Chenchaiah, Hindu, owner cum driver, aged about 43 years and resident of Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Nellore.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

15-06-2015

:

J.Vijay Kumar, S/o.Ganganna, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Legal Officer, Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., Residing at Kadapa City.

                                                                               

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	14-11-2005	:	Photostat copy of invoice No.CIL-KRMR-20, issued by CLASS India Limited in favour of A.Ramachandra Reddy for Rs.14,30,000/-.
Ex.A2	27-09-2011	:	Photostat copy of possessory agreement of sale of crop tiger executed by A.Ramachandra Reddy in favour of Thotakura Venkaiah for Rs.10,00,000/-.
Ex.A3	10-03-2013	:	Photostat copy of possessory agreement of sale of crop tiger executed by thotakuru Venkaiah in favour of P.Ramesh  for Rs.7,10,000/-.
Ex.A4	12-03-2013	:	Contractor plant and machinery floater policy shcedule bearing No.10008/44/13/000051 issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A5     Ex.A6     Ex.A7     Ex.A8   Ex.A9   Ex.A10       Ex.A11         Ex.A12       Ex.A13     Ex.A14	05-05-2013     -     -     -   -   22-04-2013       22-04-2013         23-04-2013       23-04-2013     18-04-2013	:     :     :     :     :   :       :         :       :     :	Office copy of registered lawyer notice issued on behalf of complainant to the opposite parties.   Postal acknowledgement duly signed by opposite party.   Postal acknowledgement duly signed by Shriram City Union Finance limited, Nellore.   Photos 7 in numbers.   C.D. (one in no.)   Photostat copy of sales quotation (estimate) issued by M/s. Gold Fields, Nellore relating to spare parts for Rs.9,88,347/-.   Photostat copy of estimation of TATA 497SP Engine spare parts issued by M/s.Sri Kanakadurga Auto Service, Auto Nagar, Nellore relating to engine for Rs.88,310/-.   Photostat copy of estimate receipt issued by M/s.KGN Tinkering works, Nellore relating to tinkering for Rs.80,000/-.   Photostat copy of declaration issued by Gunji Penchalaiah.   Certificate issued by sub inspector of police, Maddipadu  P.S., Prakasam District.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

Ex.B1	12-03-2013	:	True copy of the contractor plant and machinery floater policy bearing No.10008/44/13/0000051 valid from 04-03-2013 to 03-03-2014 with terms and conditions issued by this opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B2     Ex.B3	27-05-2013     17-05-2013	:     :	Copy of the repudiation letter issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant.   Photostat copy of the  CPM OPINION report submitted by the LIBRA SURVEYORS PVT., LTD., to the 1st opposite party.                                                      Id/-

                                                        PRESIDENT(FAC)

Copies to:

1) Sri N.Sreenivasulu Reddy,  Advocate,  23-1-920, 3^rd North Cross,

    Rameshreddy Nagar, Nellore-3. 

2) Sri P.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy,  Advocate, 24/2/1456, Military Colony 1^st Line,

Dargamitta, Nellore-524004.(A.P.)

3) Sri Sk.Abdul Samad, Advocate, Office Room No.11, First Floor,

    S V S Complex, Near Madras Busstand, Nellore.

 Date when order copies are issued: