DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R. DISTRICT

PRESENT:  SMT.  K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT (FAC)

              SRI.   M.V.R. SHARMA,  B.A.,  MEMBER

Saturday, 22nd June 2013

C.C. NO. 04/2013

Akumalla Ravi, Son of A. Krishnudu,

Hindu, aged about 41 years,

working as Engineer,

D.No. 1/2212, APHB Colony,

Kadapa City.                                                                       … Complainant

Vs

1. The Authorized Signatory/In charge Officer,

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

E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura,

Jaipur – 302022, Rajasthan State.

1. The Authorized Signatory/ In charge Officer,

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

2^nd Floor, Sri Gopal Auto Stores, Maruthi Nagar,

Near RTC Bus-stand, Kadapa City.                             … Opposite Parties

              This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 20.06.2013 in the presence of Sri M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for complainant  and  Sri P. Goutham Kumar,  Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2  and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt K. Sireesha, President (FAC),

1)  The complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12, of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          2)  The complainant submits that he purchased a Motor Cycle of Hero Honda make of Splender Prodrum, a self start vehicle.  The same is registered as APO4 AG 1819, which is insured with the respondents vide Policy No. 417008/31/13/000054, valid up to 15.04.2013 and the said policy was in force as on the date of incident.

          3)  The complainant further submits that he is working as Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department and he used to attend the works not only in his Department, but also other works as per the instructions of Head of the District.  Like wise, on 19.04.2012, the Project Director, DRDA, Kadapa, instructed the complainant to visit Upadhihami Pathakam (NREGS) which is being in progress at Rasoolpalli Village of C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District.  The complainant reached the said Village Rasoolpalli at about     9. AM and kept the vehicle on the left side of the road.  On 19.04.2012, the complainant visited nearby fields or road work and returned back to the main road where he kept the vehicle at about 6 P.M.  Surprisingly the complainant did not found the vehicle in the condition which he placed and he noticed it was fully damaged and not able to ride.  Immediately the complainant gave a complaint before the Station House Officer, C.K. Dinne about the incident.  The Station House Officer, C.K. Dinne issued a certificate.  Then the complainant informed the same to the representative of 2^nd respondent at Kadapa by name Mr. Siva over phone and he advised the complainant to shift the same to a nearby show room and he promised to visit the same for verification at show-room.  Accordingly on his instructions, the complainant has taken the vehicle to the Authorized Hero Honda Show room in an auto to Kadapa and the Head of Insurance by name Mr. Guru, with his cell Number 9885348407 at show room advised the complainant to meet the Shriram Insurance Engineer, who advised the complainant to take the vehicle to a local mechanic shed for repairs.  Immediately the complainant shifted the vehicle to a local mechanic at Rajeev Park, Kadapa.  The said Engineer has taken the photographs to estimate the damages of the vehicle.  The Mechanic by name Mr. Ghouse informed the complainant that the spare parts to the said vehicle are not available at Kadapa and informed the complainant to take the vehicle either to Chennai or Bangalore where the entire spare parts for the damaged vehicle would be available.  The Insurance Engineer informed the complainant to meet him after one week of receiving the vehicle to pay the Insurance amount to the damaged vehicle.  The complainant has spent a sum of Rs. 55,000/- for repairs and soon after the complainant received the vehicle, he met the said Siva.  The said Insurance Engineer has taken the photos and informed the complainant that the photographs would be sent to the Head Office and after intimation from the Head Office, the complainant would get cheque from the Head Office itself.  The complainant believing the words of the Insurance Engineer for all these days waited hoping that he would get the cheque from the Head Office.  But to the surprise of the complainant, he received a registered letter signed by the Authorized Signatory dated 09.08.2012 which was received by our client on 22^nd August, 2012 where under the claim made by the complainant is repudiated.  In the said letter the 1^st respondent has mentioned that he observed survey report, and the surveyor M/s Libra Surveyor   Private Limited, appointed by 1^st respondent has given a report mentioning that the complainant has dismantled his vehicle as per the survey inspection and hence no amount is payable and repudiated the claim of the complainant as No Claim.  The complainant submits that no surveyor approached him and no statement from the complainant was taken or recorded in this regard.  The ground on which the claim was repudiated is not correct.

          4) The complainant further submit that in the presence of the Engineer stated supra the vehicle was shifted to the local Mechanic, Kadapa by taking photographs and on the instructions of 2^nd respondent alone.  The complainant further submits that when the policy is in force, the complainant is entitled to receive the Insurance amount which was not done by the respondents.  The complainant further states that on the advice of respondents Insurance Company Engineer by name Siva and after taking the photographs by him, the vehicle was shifted to Chennai for repairs.  Thus the repudiation of the policy is incorrect and is nothing but to evade the amount payable to our client.

          5) The complainant submits that he got issued a legal notice            dt. 26.10.2012 to the respondents through his advocate which was received by the 2^nd respondent but so far not paid the amount nor gave any reply.  Thus the respondents failed to render services to the complainant.  There is no point for the respondents in keeping quite without settling the claim or even without offering a reply which itself amounts to deficiency on the part of the respondent.  The complainant is entitled for the said sum of           Rs. 1,00,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of incident i.e. 19.04.2012 till the payment.

          6) The respondent having received the premium from the complainant, failed to render proper services to the complainant.  The services of the respondent are hired by the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

          7)  The cause of action arose for the complaint on 19.04.2012, when the vehicle of the complainant damaged, on all days then the complaint shifted the vehicle to mechanic as per the instructions of the Engineers of the respondents as stated supra, on 26.10.2012, when the complainant issued notices to the respondents, to pay the amount being spent by the complaint for repairs, when the 2^nd respondent received the notice, failed to give any reply since the incident has taken place at Rasool palli Village of C.K. Dinne Mandal, and the branch office of the 1^st respondent is situated at Kadapa, the Hon’ble Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the complainant.

1. The complainant therefore prays that the Hon’ble Forum may be

pleased to pass an order directing the respondents,

1. To pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) together with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of incident dt. 19.04.2012 till the date of realization.
2. To Award a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) for deficiency of services on the part of the respondents.
3. To pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) towards mental agony.
4. To pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) being the costs of this complaint and
5. To pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice.

          9)  Counter filed by the Respondent no. 2 and the same is adopted by the Respondent no.1.

        10) The complaint filed by the complainant is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.

          11) The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations mentioned in the complaint which are not expressly and specifically admitted herein by this respondent.

          12)  The allegations in Para-1 of the complaint that the complainant has purchased a motor cycle Hero Honda Splendor and the same is registered as APO4 –AG- 1819 is to be strictly proved by the petitioner.  But the allegation that the vehicle was insured with this respondent under two wheelers package policy bearing No. 417008/31/13/000054 valid from 16.04.2012 to 15.04.2013 is admitted to be true.

          13) The allegation in Para-2 of the complaint that the complainant is working as a Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department, that he used to attend Departmental works, that on 19.04.2012 visited Rasoolpalli Village of C.K. Dinne Mandal in connection with Upadhi Hami Pathakam (NREGS), that the complainant reached the said village at about 9.00 A.M. and kept the vehicle on the left side of the road that he visited the nearby fields and return back to main road to take his vehicle at about 6.00 P.M, that  complainant found the vehicle in the condition which he placed, that he noticed that the vehicle was fully damaged and not able to ride, that the complainant immediately gave a complaint before the Station House Officer, C.K. Dinne, that the Station House Officer, C.K. Dinne issued a certificate is not within the knowledge of this respondent and the same is to be strictly proved by the complainant.

          14) The further allegation in the same para that the complainant informed about the accident to the representative of the 2^nd respondent at Kadapa by name Mr. Siva over phone that he advised the complainant to shift the same to a nearby show room and he promised to visit the same for verification at show room, that the complainant has taken the vehicle to authorized Hero Honda Show Room in an Auto to Kadapa, that one by name Mr. Guru Head of Insurance at show room advised the complainant to meet Shriram Insurance Engineer who advised the complainant to take the vehicle to the local mechanic shed for repairs, that thereafter the complainant shifted the vehicle at local mechanic at Rajiv Gandhi Park, Kadapa is absolutely false.

          15) The allegation in the same para that the said Engineer has taken the photographs and issued damages to the vehicle, that the mechanic by name Mr. Ghouse informed the complainant that the spare parts of the said vehicle are not available at Kadapa and further informed to take the vehicle either to Chennai or Bangalore for repairing the vehicle, that the Insurance Engineer informed the complainant to meet him after one week of receiving the vehicle to pay the insurance amount to the damaged vehicle is also utter false hood.

16)  The further allegations in the same para that the complainant has spent Rs. 55,000/- for repairs, that he met one Siva, that the said Insurance Engineer has taken photos and informed the complainant that the photographs would be sent to the Head Office and thereafter the complainant would get cheque from the Head Office itself is also another blatant lie invented for the purpose of this complaint.

          17) The further allegation that the complainant got surprised while he received a registered letter signed by the authorized signatory dated 09.08.2012 which was received by the complainant,  dt. 22.08.2012 wherein it was mentioned that the claim of the complainant is repudiated, and that in the said letter the first respondent has mentioned that he observed the survey report submitted by the surveyor relating to M/s. Libra Survey Private Limited appointed by the first respondent, that as per the report it is mentioned that the complainant has dismantled his vehicle as per the survey inspection and hence no amount is payable and repudiated the claim of the complainant as no claim, is true.

          18) The allegations in Para-3 of the complaint, that the complainant shifted the vehicle to the local mechanic, kadapa in the presence of the Engineer that photographs are taken on the instructions of the 2^nd respondent is also devoid of truth.  The further allegation in the same para that on the advise of Siva who is an Engineer of the respondent insurance company the vehicle was shifted to Chennai for repairs is all false.  This respondent submits that there are no officers either by name                 Siva or Guru attached to this respondent company and this respondent company is not aware of them.

          19) In this context this respondent submits that the policy was issued to the vehicle bearing No. AP04-AG-1819 under two wheelers package policy valid from 16.04.2012  to  15.04.2013 in the name of the complainant.  This respondent submits that after receiving an intimation from the complainant about the accident, this respondent has appointed surveyor by name M/s Libra Survey Private Limited to submit survey report for settling the claim.  Accordingly M/s Libra Survey Private Limited has submitted their survey report stating that after the accident the vehicle was shifted by the complainant without giving any scope for sport survey in the accident place.

          20) This respondent further submits that at the time of survey the insured vehicle was found in dismantled condition and the complainant has produced the photos which are clearly showing that the vehicle was dismantled and kept at the entrance of the private work shop and that the surveyor is unable to assess the loss and also to submit his report.  This respondent further submits that as per the claim form submitted by the complainant the accident occurred on 18.04.2012 at about 5.00 P.M.   But the certificate issued by the police shows that the vehicle was damaged and it might have dashed by the un-known vehicle.  The claim form submitted by the complainant coupled with the police certificate clearly shows that the vehicle was dismantled by the complainant for the reasons best known to him and managed the police to get the alleged certificate in order to get the unlawful claim.  Further the policy was came into force on                   dt. 16.04.2012 and the alleged accident occurred on 18.04.2012 at 5.00 P.M. which is a case of close proximity and it is clearly shows that the complainant has managed the things to sue his case for getting unlawful gain.  The photos which the complainant submitted to the surveyor clearly show that the vehicle was dismantled and kept the part A before the private mechanic shop proves the attitude of the complainant in claiming the false claim.  In view of the above facts and circumstances this respondent company has repudiated the said claim as no claim and intimated the same to the complainant through the letter dt. 09.08.2012.  Hence this respondent has acted as pie the rules and regulations of the Policy and therefore, there is no deficiency of Service on the part of this respondent.  This respondent has already intimated the same through its letter dated 09.08.2012 and hence this respondent has not given any reply to the legal notice issued on behalf of the complaint dt. 26.10.2012.

          21) That while divulging the information about hypothecation agreement details to the OP company, the complainant himself has declared and fact is also clear from the copy of RC relied and filed by the complainant himself that the vehicle in question has been under finance at the relevant time and till date from INDUS IND BANK LTD., Kadapa and the Financier has not been added as party in the array of parties which is necessary party and as such the complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties. 

          22) This respondent humbly submits that there is no cause of action for filing the complaint and one pleaded in the complaint is devoid of substance.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini.

          23)  All the other allegations in the complaint which are contrary to the case of this respondent company are false, denied and devoid of substance invented for the purpose of this false claim.

            24)  It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint of the complainant with exemplary costs in the interests of justice.

          25)  Exhibits A1 to A7 marked on behalf of the complainant. Exhibits B1 to B4 marked on behalf of the respondents.   From the above averments these points were taken for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him.
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent No. 1 & 2 or not.
3. To what relief ?

26) Point Nos. 1 & 2:  The complainant is the owner of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP04  AG 1819 which is insured with respondents company vide Policy No. 417008/31/13/000054 under Ex. A2  the policy is from dt. 16.04.2012  to  15.04.2013.  As per Ex. A1 on 19.04.2012 the complainants Motor cycle was dashed by unknown vehicle and got fully damaged.  But under Ex. B3 the date of accident is 18.04.2012  there is a contradiction in the date of incident.  The complainant is having original Driving License under Ex. A3.  Ex. B2 is also very clear that the incident occurred on 18.04.2012.  Ex. B1 and Ex.A2 are the same.  Under Ex. B4 also it is very clear that the incident occurred on 18.04.2012.  The complainant stated in the complaint that the incident occurred on 19.04.2012.  Ex. A7 clearly shows that the vehicle was financed by Indus Ind Bank, Kadapa vide AGT No. AKC10278H.  The complainant had not added the financier as necessary party to the complaint.  Ex. A4 to A6 did not support the case of the complainant the complainant did not file even a single piece of evidence to prove that Mr. Guru is the agent of the respondents.  As seen from the averments of the complaint it is very clear that the complainant had taken the policy from the respondents which comes into force from dt. 16.04.2012 the alleged incident occurred in very short time i.e., within two days on dt. 18.04.2012.  So, all these creates some suspicion about the accident of the vehicle.  In the above circumstances the complainant utterly failed to prove his case.  So, the complainant is not eligible for the+ compensation as prayed by him at the same time there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent no. 1 and 2.

27) Point No.3:  In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs. 

          Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 22nd June 2013.

MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant : NIL                                               For Respondents : NIL

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex  A1:   Original certificate issued by the SHO C.K. Dinne.

Ex. A2:   P/c of Insurance Policy.

Ex. A3:   P/c of Driving License of the complainant.

Ex. A4:   O/c of Legal notice dt. 26.10.2012 to the Respondents with postal

              receipts.

Ex. A5:   Served Acknowledgment of 2^nd respondent.

Ex. A6:   Photos of the vehicle (3 nos)

Ex. A7:   Original certificate issued by the Authorized signatory Indus ind

              Bank, Ltd., dt. 19.04.2012.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents:

Ex. B1:   Certificate cum policy schedule Motorized Two wheelers package

               policy – Zone B.

Ex. B2:   Attested Motor insurance Claim Form submitted by the

              complainant.

Ex. B3:   Claim intimation slip dt. 19.04.2012.

Ex. B4:   Attested copy of Motor final survey report dt. 22.07.2012.

MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT  (FAC)

Copy to:-        

1. Sri M.  Suresh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
2. Sri P. Goutham Kumar, Advocate for Respondents.

P.P.R                                                  - - -