BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 18th day of March, 2009
C.C.No. 125/08
Between:
P.Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o.Papi Reddy,
H.No.1-34-13, Atmakur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District- 518422.. … Complainant
Versus
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, By its Branch Manager,
H.No.40-34-1, U Con Plaza, Kurnoo-518 002.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, By its Manager,
Usman Plaza, 6-3-352/1, 4th Floor, Road No. 1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.L.Srinivasa Reddy , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu , Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon
perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.125/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act , 1986 seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.42,101/- under the policy bearing No. 3005/50056248/00/000
towards damages caused to the motor cycle , Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and any other relief or relief’s which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant is the owner of the Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing temporary registration No.AP 21 KT/R 9636 and the said motor cycle was insured with opposite parties covering risk of own damages under policy bearing No.3005/50056248/00/000 commenced from 05-06-2006 to 04-06-2007. The complainant purchased the said motor cycle under hypothecation with Sree Rama City Union Finance Limited , Nandyal for Rs.44,317/- . On 18-07-2006 the said motor cycle was taken away and was burnt by unknown persons and it was totally destroyed in the said accident and the complainant lodged a complaint with police on 20-07-2006. Thereafter, the complainant sent claim form along with relevant documents to opposite arties claiming total loss of his motor cycle and the opposite party replied repudiating the claim that the date of loss does not lie between registration validity period i.e., 17-06-2006 to 17-07-2006 the complainant submits that due to some personal inconvenience he could not get his motor cycle registration with RTO Nandyal by the date of accident and the non registration of motor cycle was in no way responsible for the damages caused to the said motor cycle and alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite party No. 2 in repudiating his valid claim . Hence , resorted to the forum for relief’s.
3. In support of his case the complainant’s side relied on the following documents viz., (1) registration of claim letter dated 07-03-2007 of opposite party No. 2 to complainant and (2) Xerox copy of policy issued
to the complainant , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant , the opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case ,opposite party No.1 filed written version and opposite party No. 2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits the complainant as the owner of new motor cycle bearing temporary registration No. AP21/KT/R 9636 & insured the same with opposite parties for one year from 05-06-20067 to 04-06-2007 vide policy bearing No. 3005/50056248 /00/000 . It further submits that the complainant lodged a claim with this opposite parties for total loss of the vehicle and the same was repudiated by the opposite party No. 2 on 17-07-2007 as the insured vehicle was not registered with RTA within the validity period and got a regular registration number as such there is a gross violation of policy terms and conditions and hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant . It also further submits that an independent surveyor namely M.R. Sreenivasan was appointed and he inspected the vehicle on 31-12-2006 and submitted his report on 10-02-2007 assessing the net loss on salvage basis at Rs.41,000/- and hence the complainant is entitled only to Rs.41,000/- as assessed by the surveyor and lastly submits that there is no cause of action for the complainant and the alleged cause of action is false and invented and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and the repudiation of claim is proper and genuine and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary cost.
6 Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?.
7. It is the simple case of the complainant that he is the owner of Bajaj Discover Motor Cycle bearing Temporary Registration No.AP 21 KT/R 9636 and which was insured with opposite parties under policy
bearing No. 3005/50056248/00/000 valid from 05-06-2006 to 04-06-2007 vide Ex.A2 . The Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of two wheeler package policy certificate cum policy schedule issued to the complainant by
opposite parties. On 18-07-2006 the said motor cycle was taken away and burnt by some unknown persons and the said motor cycle was totally destroyed due to fire. On the claim preferred by the complainant the opposite parties repudiated vide Ex.A1, on the reason that the date of loss does not lie between the registration validity period i.e, 17-06-2006 to 17-07-2006.
8. The complainant in his complaint averments submitted that due to some personnel inconvenience he could not get his motor cycle registered within the registration validity period with RTO and the said non – registration of motor cycle was no way responsible for the damages caused to the said motor cycle and there is no violation of policy terms and conditions.
9. The main and only plea of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not get his motor cycle registered within the registration validity period with RTO and did not regular registered numbers and such there is gross violation of policy terms and conditions . The policy issued by the opposite parties to the complainant is for new motor cycle for a period valid from 05-06-2006 to 04-06-2006 and there is nothing in the said policy that the said policy will be valid only when the complainant gets his motor cycle registered with RTO within the registration validity period and the opposite parties except making mere allegations did not choose to substantiate their allegations by placing any such terms and conditions which the complainant said to have violated . Hence , it cannot be said that the complainant violated terms and conditions of said policy .
10. In the Ex.A2 Xerox copy of policy no stipulation is shown that the existence of registration is compulsory for entertainment of a claim, Ex.A2 policy was issued for a period of one year on the basis of
temporary registration and the temporary registration is valid for one month only and without any rider clause of the validity of insurance subject to having regular registration . The said circumstances implies
that , on the point of registration , repudiation cannot be done.
11. The opposite parties in support of their case relied on Ex.B1 surveyor M.R.Srinivasan’s report, who assess loss suffered by the complainant , the said surveyor submitted his report dated 10-02-2007 to the opposite parties ( Ex.B1) and assessed the loss suffered by the complainant to Rs.41,000/- . On perusal of Ex.B1 surveyors report it appears that the said surveyor has conducted his survey and also gone through the material of police investigation and assessed the loss to Rs.41,000/-.
12. The complainant in this case claimed Rs.42,101/- as damages to the said motor cycle, but in his sworn affidavit the complainant limited his claim to the amount assessed by the surveyor in Ex.B1. The opposite party in his written version averments submitted that they have no objection to pay the said amount if the claim is permissible.
13. To sum up, the complainant’s motor cycle was picked up and burnt by some unknown persons and the said motor cycle was having temporary registration and the opposite party issued the policy to the
new vehicle only and no stipulation was shown as permanent registration is compulsory for entertainment of the claim. Hence the repudiation by opposite parties on the said ground untenable and amounts to deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties have to pay to the complainant the surveyor assessed amount of Rs.41,000/- to which the complainant is perfectly remaining entitled and as the opposite parties constrained the complainant to resort to the forum for relief the opposite parties have to compensate by paying Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
14. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant surveyors assessed amount of Rs.41,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default, the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the above award with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronouncedby us in the open bench on this the 18th day of March, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Rejection of claim dated 07-03-2007.
Ex.A2. Xerox copy of policy.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Motor Survey report ( final) by M.R.Srinivasan .
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
