FA 942/2010 against CC 590/2009   on the file of the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad.

Between :

Agarwal Foundries, represented by its

Asst. Manager and Authorized representative

Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, S/o R. P. Sharma,

Aged about 45 years, O/a Rama Towers,

5-4-83, 2^nd Floor, TSK Chambers,

M. G. Road, Secunderabad – 500 003                 ..          Appellant/complainant

And

1.            M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

Represented by its Managing Director,

Deccan Chambers, 4^th Floor, 6-3-666-B,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500 082.

     2.         The Regional Manager,

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

 4^th Floor, 6-3-666-B,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500 082.    ..         Respondents/opp. parties

Counsel for the Appellant                          :           Mr. G. Venkata Swamy Goud

Counsel for the Respondents       :           Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy

Coram           ;          

                              Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…      Hon’ble Member

And

                                    Sri T. Ashok Kumar                ..         Hon’ble Member

Thursday, the 1^st Day of March

Two Thousand Twelve

          Oral Order       :   ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )

****

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the complainant  as against the  orders dated 12.07.2010  in CC  590/2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :

2.         The brief facts of the complaint  are as under :

The complainant had taken a Motor Vehicle Accident Policy  bearing No. 1802372328100492 dated 31.3.2007 for Rs.5,71,000/- valid up to 29.03.2008 for a premium of Rs.6,075/-. It is a comprehensive policy ( covering drivers, cleaners and conductors )  with a third party accident liability against the vehicle Reg. No. HR 38L7181 ( crane) Registered at R. T. A. Hyderabad. He made a complaint to the opposite party vide letter  dated 1.10.2007 informing about the accident that took place on 01.10.207 to the said vehicle  within the factory premises and requested to appoint a surveyor and  assess the loss as he is incurring loss @ Rs.10,000/- per day but they neither settled the dispute nor sent any reply. Therefore, he was forced to get  repaired his vehicle by spending Rs.92,905/- under various bills by Johny Traders and Sai Ganesh Crane Services and submitted  his claim along wit the bills to the OPs vide letter dated 10.10.2007.  In spite of written several letters mentioned in the complainant for settlement of the claim  there was no reply from the Opposite parties and hence he got issued  a legal notice dated 10.01.2008 for the same but there was no reply and it amounts to cheating, Criminal breach of trust and fraud and also deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.92,905/- with interest @ 24% pa  from the date of accident , i.e., from 01.10.2007  to the date of notice and payment of Rs.33,500/- + Rs.2,00,000/-lay off charges + Rs.20,000/- incidental charges totaling to Rs.3,46,405/-, to award future interest @ 24% PA  and Rs. one lakh towards compensation and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

3.         Though Sri G. Srinivasacharyulu filed Vakalat for the Opposite parties but did not file any counter and thus there is no written version on behalf of Ops. 

4.         The complainant filed  evidence affidavit reiterating his  respective pleadings  and  Ex. A1 to A 19 were marked on behalf of the complainant and evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.      Having heard the complainant  and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation and Rs.2000/- costs holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6.      Dissatisfied with the said orders the complainant filed this appeal and contended that when the complainant  incurred so much of expenditure in getting the vehicle repaired the District Forum inadequately awarded only Rs.10,000/- compensation and Rs.2000/ costs which is illegal , arbitrary and not sustainable either in law or on facts and thus prayed to allow the appeal and to order the Ops to pay the amounts as prayed for in the complainant. 

7.      Heard the counsel for the appellant with reference to the grounds of appeal and no arguments were advanced for OPs

8.      Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for enhancement of any amount ?

9.    The case of the complainant is that The complainant had taken a Motor Vehicle Accident Policy  bearing No. 1802372328100492 dated 31.3.2007 for Rs.5,71,000/- valid up to 29.03.2008 for a premium of Rs.6,075/- and that while the policy was in force it met with an accident on 1.10.2007 in the factory premises and therefore the complainant addressed letter dt. 1.10.2010 to OPs to appoint a surveyor to assess the damage and that no such surveyor was appointed and that he got repaired the vehicle by spending huge amount of Rs.92,905/- and brought the vehicle to workable condition and that also incurred loss @ Rs.10000/- per day as the crane was laid off due to accident. The complainant did not file any documents evidencing the accident such as police report, FIR etc.  He marked the bills showing that he spent total amount of Rs.92,905/-  and mere marking of bills is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that so much of amount of expenditure  incurred by him  it much more so when the alleged repairs got done at the choice place of the complainant and not with the authorized workshops and the District Forum did not discuss anything with regard to the said bills to arrive as to how much amount  in fact spent towards the alleged vehicle but holding that OPs rendered deficiency in service  awarded only Rs.10,000/- which is not sustainable viewed in any point. Whether the complainant comes within the meaning of ‘ Consumer ‘ and the dispute is a consumer dispute has also to be decided in this case.  Even though the OPs remained exparte it is the duty of Forum to consider the bills and arrived at the conclusion in the said context but did not do so therefore we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to be remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to both sides. 

10.        In the result,  for the reasons given by this Commission the order under Appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum for fresh disposal according to law keeping in view the observations made in these orders.

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                    DATED   01.03.2012