BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.T. Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 20th day of July , 2010
C.C.No 143/09
Between:
A.Surya Maddilety Reddy,S/o. Pedda Thimma Reddy,
H.No.27/778/4, N.G.O. Colony, Nandyal.
..Complainant
-Vs-
- M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Mourya Inn Complex, 40/304, Kurnool-518 001.
2. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.., Rep by its. Manager,
D.No. 2-415-B, N.K.Road, Nandyal-518 501.
..Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S. V. Krishna Reddy , Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. K. Muralidhar , Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.143/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 & 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
(i) to pay the damages of Rs.1,13,874/- under the policy .
(ii) to award costs of the compliant .
(ii) to award Rs.20,000/- for mental agony.
(iii) to award interest from the date of repudiation till the realization.
(iv) to grant such other relief or relief’s as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is the owner of the Clahs Agriculture Harvester Machine. He got insured his Clahs Agriculture Harvester Machine with OP.No.2 for Rs.14,00,000/- on 31-12-2007. The OP.No.2 issued policy bearing No. 0151102/31/07/01/ 00001602 . The said policy was inforce from 31-12-2007 to 30-12-2008. On 05-04-2008 when the said machine was being carried in a vehicle it fell down and damaged. The said damage of the machine is informed to OP.No.2. OP.No.2 appointed a surveyor for assessment of damages. The complainant submitted all the bills to OP.No.2 . OP.No.2 agreed to pay Rs.23,000/- instead of Rs.1,13,874/- . The complainant got legal notice issued to the OP.No.2 on 07-10-2008. OP.No.2 received the said notice and got issued reply with false allegations. Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by OP.No.2. It is mentioned in the written version of OP.No.1 that the complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. It is true that OP.No.2 issued insurance policy infavour of the complainant .A surveyor was appointed and he submitted in his report that the complainant originally claimed Rs.98,450/- . The surveyor estimated the damage caused to the machine at Rs.29,500/- The complainant intimated about the said amount and the complainant was requested to pass a discharge voucher for full settlement of the said amount. The loss sustained by the complainant was properly assessed. The bills submitted by the complainant are not genuine and they are fake. There is no cause of action for the complainant . The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A12 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of Ops Ex.B1 to B4 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.1 is filed.
5. Both parties filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Point 1& 2:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the Clahs Agriculture Harvester Machine . The said machine was insured with OP.No.2 for Rs.14,00,000/- . OP.No.2 issued Ex.B4 insurance policy infavour of the complainant . The said policy was inforce form 31-12-2007 to 30-12-2008. The Harvester Machine of the complainant was damaged on 31-12-2007 is not under dispute . It is the case of the complainant that inpsite of several demands made by the complainant the Ops did not settle the claim .The damage to the machine of the complainant occurred on 05-04-2008 . The surveyors report Ex.B2 is dated 30-06-2008 . Ex.B3 is inspection report dated 25-07-2008. The Ops did not settle the claim of the complainant immediately after the surveyor submitted his report to Ops. It is very clear from the evidence available on record that the complainant got issued a legal notice to the Ops on 07-10-2008 . Ex.A11 is the copy of the said notice. For the said notice OP.No.2 got issued reply notice dated 21-10-2008. In the said notice it is mentioned that the surveyor assessed the damage of machine at Rs.29,500/- and that insurance company is agreeable to pay the said amount to the complainant on submission of the discharge voucher by the complainant . The Ops did not explain the delay in settling the claim of the complainant. As already stated the accident took place on 05-04-2008 and the complainant was not paid any amount till 07-10-2008 . The delay in paying the amount to the insured amounts to deficiency of service .
8. The complainant has claimed damage of Rs.1,13,874/- along with Rs.20,000/- for mental agony. Admittedly a surveyor who is appointed after the accident estimated the damage caused to the machine of the complainant at Rs.29,500/- . It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that he incurred heavy amount to get the vehicle repaired and that the insurance company is liable to pay entire amount of Rs.1,13,874/- . The complainant filed Ex.A4 to Ex.10 xerox copies of the bills. The sworn affidavits of the persons who gave the said bills are not at all filed to prove Ex.A4 to Ex.A10. Mere marking of documents is not sufficient. They must be proved through a competent person. The complainant did not give any reason for his failure to file the originals of Ex.A4 to Ex.A10. The surveyors report must be given due weight. As already stated in the instant case the surveyor visited the damaged machine and estimated the loss damage caused to the machine at Rs.29,500/- . It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company that the Ops offered to pay Rs.29,500/- to the complainant but the complainant without receiving the said amount filed the present complaint claiming compensation of Rs.1,13,874/- . The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company cited a decision reported in III (2008) CPJ 93 (NC) where in the National Commission held that the surveyors report to be given due weightage and that consumer fora cannot go into quantum dispute.
9. In the present case as seen from the affidavit evidence of the complainant it is very clear that the complainant is disputing the quantum of amount. In the light of the observation made in the above cited decision I am of the firm view that this forum can not go into the quantum dispute. It is open to the complainant to approach the Civil Court to claim mere compensation than the amount of compensation offered by OP.No.2.
10.Point No:3- In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the Ops jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.29,500/- and costs of Rs.500/- with interest at 9% from the date of demand notice i.,e 07-10-2008 till the date of payment .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20th day of July , 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE 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 Photo copy of claim form.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of miscellaneous and special type of vehicles package policy.
Ex.A3. Photo copy of challan and receipt for compounding offence under M.V.Act and certificate.
Ex.A4. Spare parts list.
Ex.A5. Tinkering and labour charges bill .
Ex.A6. Mechanic labour charges bill
Ex.A7. Photo copy of En En Enterprises bill No.92.
Ex.A8. Photo copy of En En Enterprises bill No.94.
Ex.A9. Photo copy of bill Sri. Veeranjaneya Engineering & Earth Movers.
Ex.A10. Photo copy of Mahi Agro Agencies Bill No. 5980.
Ex.A11. Office copy of legal notice dated 07-10-2008.
Ex.A12. Reply notice dated 21-10-2008
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Estimation submitted by complainant.
Ex.B2. Final report of the surveyor dated 30-06-2008.
Ex.B3. Re-inspection survey report dated 25-07-2008.
Ex.B4. Insurance policy copy No. 051102/31/07/01/0001602.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE 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 :
