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 1st day of March, 2011
C.C.No 82/10
Between:
G.Dada Saheb, S/o. G.P.Peeran Saheb,
H.No.8-13-15, Allagadda.
…..…Complainant
-Vs-
- The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office III (CBU),The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rosy Towers, 2nd Floor, No.7, Nungabakkam High Road, CHENNAI - 600 034.
2. The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport and Finance Company Limited,
H.No. 2-414 A, 1st Floor, T.T.D. Road, Opp. Raj Theatre, Nandyal - 518 501, Kurnool District.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for complainant, and opposite party No.1 set exparte and Sri N.Guru Shankaraiah, Advocate, for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 82/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.1,49,800/- toward damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 22-05-2008 till the date of realization.
- To grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony.
- To grant the cost of the complaint;
(d) To grant any other relief or reliefs 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 under:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP09 U 7309. The opposite party No.1 is the insurer and opposite party No.2 is the financier of the said vehicle. Opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No.411300/31/2008/8165 in favour of the complainant. In respect of the vehicle bearing No.AP09 U 7309. The said policy was in force from 02-09-2007 to 01-09-2008. The vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident that took place on 22-05-2008. Immediately after the accident the complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties. The complainant also submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. The surveyor of opposite party No.1 estimated the loss at Rs.1,49,800/-. The opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant inspite of several requests. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 25-11-2009 to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 did not give any reply. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 remained exparte. Opposite party No.2 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Opposite party No.2 is not a proper and necessary party. Opposite party No.2 is only a financier. It is opposite party No.1, who is liable to pay the amount to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 forwarded all the documents received from the complainant to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is nothing to do, with regard to the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A13 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties no documents is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed.
5. The complainant and opposite party No.2 filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(c) To what relief?
7. POINT No.1 & 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP09 U 7309 and the said vehicle is insured with opposite party No.1. Admittedly opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A11 insurance policy bearing No.411300/31/2008/8165 in favour of the complainant in respect of his vehicle bearing No.AP09 U 7309. It is further case of the complainant that his vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 22-05-2008. The opposite party No.1 in Ex.A12 copy of reply notice admitted that the vehicle bearing No.AP09 U 7309 met with an accident on 22-05-2008. Ex.A5 is the copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.43/2008 dated 22-05-2008. It is mentioned in Ex.A5 that on 21-05-2008 tanker bearing No.TN30 S 3049 driven by its driver in negligent manner dashed against the vehicle bearing No.AP09 U 7309 and in the said accident the vehicle of the complainant was damaged. According to the complainant after the accident he submitted his claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 and that opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim inspite of several demands. Admittedly prior to the filling of the complaint, the complainant gave a notice to opposite party No.1 demanding to settle the claim. Opposite party No.1 having received the said notice gave reply Ex.A12 admitted that the claim of the complaint is pending with it for want of certain documents. Opposite party No.1 kept quite till the complainant give a demand notice dated 25-10-2009. In the reply notice Ex.A12 also it is mentioned that the complaint’s claim was not settled for want of documents like Original Permit, Original Load Challan, F.I.R. translation etc. The said documents are not necessary to settle the claim of the complainant there is deficiency of service on the party of opposite party No.1.
8. According to the complainant he incurred an amount of Rs.1,49,800/- to get his vehicle repaired. He filed Ex.A6 quotation for Rs.1,49,800/-. It is not the case of the opposite party No.1 that a final surveyor was not appointed to assess the loss. As seen from Ex.A9 it is very clear that the complainant asked for some information from opposite party No.1 under right to information Act. Opposite party No.1 gave a reply Ex.A10 stating that the documents 2 to 6 required by the complainant were sent to Kurnool Office. Those documents relate to spot survey report and final survey report concerned in this case. Opposite party No.1 suppressed the spot survey report and final survey report. Opposite party No.1 remained exparte. The complainant in his sworn affidavit stated that he incurred loss of Rs.1,49,800/-. The opposite party No.1 not settled the claim of the complainant and there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is liable to pay damages of Rs.1,49,800/- is claimed by the complainant.
9. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay damages of Rs.1,49,800/- to the complainant with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint i.e 19-03-2010 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs.500/-. Complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 1st day of March, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Insurance Policy No.411300/31/2008/8165.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Tax receipt of Rs.3,330/-
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Driving License of complainant.
Ex.A4 Photo copy Certificate of fitness.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of F.I.R. No.43/2008 Manopad, Police Station
Dated 22-05-2008.
Ex.A6 Photo copy Quation.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Motor Claim form.
Ex.A8 Office copy of legal notice dt.25-11-2009.
Ex.A9 Photo copy of letter dt.08-11-2010 to opposite party No.1 (RTI Act) along with postal receipt.
Ex.A10 Reply letter dt.26-11-2010 of OP1 to Complainant counsel.
Ex.A11 Photo copy of Motor insurance certificate cum policy No.411300/31/2008/8165.
Ex.A12 Photo copy of letter dated 15-02-2010.
Ex.A13 Photo copy of letter dt.07-12-2010.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nill
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 :
