BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No. 159 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO. 42 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II TIRUPATHI

Between:

1.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

        D.O.3, No.7, Uttamar Gandhi Salai,

        Rosy Towers,

        II Floor, No.7, Nungambakkam High Road,

        CHENNAI – 600 034.

2.     The Branch Manager,

        Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

        Narasimha Teertham Road,

        Tirupati,

        Chittoor District.

                                                Appellants/opposite parties no.1 &2

        A N D

1.   Kumara Doctor Babu,S/o. Muddukrishna Rao,

Dr.No.16, Balaji Nagar, Kuppam
Chittoor

                                                        Respondent/ complainant

2.   The Branch Manager,

        M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

        D.No.19-3-13/K, Near Hero Honda Showroom,

        Renigunta Road,

        Tirupati, Chittoor District.

                                                        Respondent/opposite partyno.3

Counsel for the Appellants                     M/s N.Mohan Krishna

Counsel for the Respondents                 M/s Vakkanti Narsimha Rao(R1)
                                                        M/s Raghavender (R2)

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                AND

SRI T.ASHOK KUAMR, HON’BLE MEMBER

FRIDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST

                                TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                        **

1.     The respondent has filed complaint seeking direction to the New India Assurance Company Ltd for payment of a sum of Rs.3,93,,095/- towards the repair charges of his Tipper Goods Carriage  Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

2.     The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent  is the owner of Tipper Goods Carriage vehicle  bearing registration number TN-31-J-7499  and he  had obtained  insurance policy bearing no.411300/31/2006/5955 from the appellant   company for his vehicle  for the period from 25.05.2006 to 24.05.2007. The vehicle met with an accident on 7.12.2006. The respondent intimated the appellant about the accident and the appellant deputed surveyor and with the permission of the responden shifted the vehicle to the garage of the repairer who issued estimated for an amount of Rs.3,93,095/-. The appellant had not settled the claim . The respondent got issued notice dated 31.10.2009 to settle the claim and pay the amount with interest. The respondent submitted the relevant documents to the appellant-insurance company.

3.     The contention of the appellant-insurance company is that it through letter dated 18.02.2009 requested the respondent to submit certain documents for processing the claim. The letter was returned with endorsement from the postal authorities “left”. The appellant sought for driving licence particulars of the driver and the reason for change in the name of the driver and the claim form. The respondent without furnishing the particulars sought for,  got issued notice dated 31.10.2009 for which reply was issued by the appellant on 16.12.2009.

4.     The respondent has filed his affidavit in support of his claim and he has also filed the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A9.  On behalf of the appellant   insurance company the documents Exs.B1 to B3 had been marked.

6.     The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellant ought not to have waited for long time to seek for the driving licence details of the driver and the particulars sought for, will be available in the surveyor’s report and the respondent would not submit the claim form without enclosing the relevant documents.

        The points for consideration are

i)             Whether the respondent had violated the conditions of the insurance policy?

ii)           Whether the opposite party insurance company is liable to pay any amount to the complainant?

iii)          To what relief?

7.     POINTS Nos 1and 2:   The appellant’s  ownership of the vehicle, Tipper  Goods Carriage bearing registration number TN-31-J-499 and its insurance coverage under the insurance policy have not been in dispute between the parties.  The accident that occurred on 07.12..2006 and the vehicle sustaining damages in the accident are also not in dispute between the parties to the proceedings. 

8.     The respondent claimed an amount of Rs.3,93,095/- stating that he had incurred the amount for repair of the vehicle. The appellant-insurance company deputed a surveyor who had assessed the loss caused to the vehicle.

9.     The appellant-insurance company addressed letter on 18.02.2009 requesting the respondent to furnish the particulars of the driving licence of the driver and discrepancy in the name of the driver in the FIR and the claim form. The letter was returned with endorsement, “left’.   Thereafter, the respondent got issued notice with demand for settlement of his claim. The appellant issued reply on 16.12.2009 requesting the respondent to furnish the driving licence particulars and the discrepancy in the name of the driver for which there was no response from the respondent. The appellant addressed letter dated 22.03.2010 and 27.10.2010 requesting the respondent to submit registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle for the period covering the date of accident , driving licence of R.Tamilvanan, original load challan, cahe bills for purchase of spare parts and repairs undertaken and explanation for stating the name of driver as Murali in claim form against what is stated in FIR,viz., R.Tamilvanan.

10.    The respondent failed to submit the driving particulars of the driver and the cause for discrepancy in the name of the driver in the FIR and claim form. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Forum failed to consider important documents such as the letter dated 16.12.2009 wherein the appellant made specific request for submission of the driving licence particulars of the driver and sought for explanation as to discrepancy in the name of the driver in FIR and claim form. We accept with the contention of the learned counsel.  The District Forum has not considered the documents filed by the appellant and strangely came to the conclusion that the respondent would submit claim form with documents and the particulars of the driving licence sought for can be gathered from the surveyor’s report.

11.    The basic duty cast on the respondent is that he has to submit relevant documents along with claim form to the appellant-insurance company. The respondent cannot expect settlement of claim without submitting the documents such as the driving licence of the driver who drove the vehicle and the registration certificate and permit of the vehicle so as to serve twin purpose that the appellant would proceed to process the claim and he would ensue the appellant there was no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The District Forum ought to have considered the documents filed by the appellant and without considering the dispute as to the variation in the name of driver in FIR and claim form, allowed the complaint.

12.    It is not proper for a Court or Tribunal not exercising jurisdiction vested in it. The District Forum has not exercised its jurisdiction vested in it by its failure to consider the evidence placed on record. No order can be passed without assessing evidence on record. Findings of the District Forum should be based on all relevant issues of the case vis-à-vis the contention and arguments of the parties, absence  any of them  thereof would result in miscarriage of justice. The order passed without considering the documents placed on record is not sustainable.

13.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised the need for giving reason for decision and failure to give reasons was held the order unsustainable. In “VishnuDevSharma vs State of Utter Pradesh and others” 2008(10SCJ 765 the supreme Court held that right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reason sufficient to indicate application of mind to the matter before court .

14.    The Apex Court referred to its earlier decision in “State of Orissa vs  Dhaniram Luhai”  (2004) 5 SCC 568 and  held that” The hallmark of a judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice –delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice”.

15.    The Supreme Court held in “United India Insurance Company and others vs Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd and others” (2000)10 SCC19 that non-consideration of documentary evidence would result in serious miscarriage of justice and vitiates the order or judgement passed by the Forum or Court.

16.    We are of the considered opinion that the matter need be remitted back to the District Forum giving opportunity to the appellant to proceed with her claim basing on the evidence placed on record and to be adduced if any,.  The District Forum shall not be carried away by the observations made by this Commission in this regard.    It has to come to the conclusion independently,   uninfluenced by any observations made by us in the order. 

17.            In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of  the District Forum. The matter is remanded back to the District Forum for its disposal afresh. No costs.

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                             Dt.31.08.2012

*KMK