BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.SundaraRamaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri.M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Friday the 6^th day of May, 2011

C.C.No.83/10

BETWEEN:

S.AdilHussain,S/o S.MahaboobBasha,

H.No.25-419-4-1, Saleem Nagar, Nandyal - 518 501, Kurnool District.        

                        …Complainant

                                  -Vs-

1. The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office III [CBU],The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,    

    RosyTowers, 2^nd floor, No.7,Nungabakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.

    2. The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport and Finance Company Limited,

H.No.2-414 A, 1^st Floor, T.T.D. Road, Opp- Raj Theatre, Nandyal - 518 501

.…Opposite Parties     

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.SivajiRao, Advocate for complainant and Sri Y.JayaRaju, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri N.GuruShankaraiah, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri.T.SundaraRamaiah, President)

                                      C.C. No. 83/10 

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.8,000/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident i.e. 20-07-2006 till the date of realization;

(b)    To grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony;

(c)    To grant the cost of the complaint;

1. To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 4574.  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 the policy bearing No. 411300/31/2006/24517 in favourof the complainant.  The policy was in force from 16-01-2006 to 15-01-2007.  On 20-07-2006 the vehicle of the complainant is damaged in the accident.   Thecomplainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor and he estimated the loss at Rs.8,000/-.Inspiteof several demands opposite party No.1 not paid the assessed amount to the complainant.  The complainant issued a legal notice on 25-11-2009to the opposite parties.  Opposite party No.1 did not give any reply.Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The policy bearing No.411300/31/2006/24517was issued by the opposite party No.1 and it was in force from 16-01-2006 to 15-01-2007.  The complainant not informed about the alleged accident to opposite party No.1.  No surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1 to assess the damage.  For the legal notice got issued by the complainant,opposite party No.1 issued a reply notice dated 07-01-2010.  No document about the accident was received by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  The alleged accident took place on 20-07-2006.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 25-11-2009.  The complaint is barred by limitation.

        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 a financier.Opposite party No.2 gave finance to the complainant to purchase the vehicle.  The documents received from the complainant regarding to settlement of the claim are forwarded to opposite party No.1.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2.  It is opposite party No.1 who is liable to settle the claim of the complainant.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavits of Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool and opposite party No.2 are filed.

 5.    Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by time.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(c)                To what relief?

7.      POINT No.1:-It is the case of the complainant that his Vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 4574 met with an accident on 20-07-2006 and that he got legal notice issued to the opposite parties on 25-11-2009.  It is the case of the opposite party that no intimation about the alleged accident was received by it and that the present complaint is filed beyond two years from the date of the alleged accident.  The period of limitation to file a complaint is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  The complainant did not place any documentary evidence to show that his claim is pending with opposite party No.1.  Ex.A1 is the legal notice got issued by the complainant.  Admittedly it was issued beyond two years from the date of the alleged accident.  Mere issuing of legal notice does not  extend the period of limitation.   Generally in the case of the insurance claims the period of limitation for filling   the complaint before the forum starts from the date on which the claim is repudiated by the insurance company.  In the present case there is no material on record to show that the complainant made a claim and the said claim was pending with opposite party No.1 by the date of filling the complaint.  The complaint is barred by time as it is filed beyond two years from the date of the alleged accident on 20-07-2006.  

8.     POINTS 2 & 3:- It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 4574 and it was insured with opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 filed Ex.B2 copy of the insurance policy where in it is mentioned that the complainant is the insured and his vehicle is insured with opposite party No.1.  Oppositeparty No.1 disputes about the alleged accident dated 20-07-2006.  It is for the complainant to establish that his vehicle was damaged in the motor accident on 20-07-2006.  Except the interest evidence of the complainant there is no evidence on record to show that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 20-07-2006 and it was damaged.  It is also the case of the complainant that immediately after the accident he intimated the same to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 is the financier.  Had opposite party No.2 sent the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1 there must be some record in the office of opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 did not produce any document to show that it sent the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1.  No doubt opposite party No.2 in its written version stated that it submitted the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1.  The date on which the claim of the complainant was submitted to opposite party No.1 is not stated in the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2.  Admittedly prior to the filling of the present complaint the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties.  Opposite party No.1 received the said notice and gave a reply notice Ex.B1 stating that no claim was pending with it and no surveyor was appointed by it.  The complainant did not mention the name of the surveyor in his complaint.  The affidavit of the surveyor is not filed by the complainant.  Absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 20-07-2006 and that the complainant intimated about the accident to opposite party No.1.  No deficiency of service is found on the part of opposite party No.1.  There is no cause of action to file the present complaint.

9.     In result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the day 6^th of May, 2011.

Sd/-                              Sd/-                              Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite party:Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

 Ex.A1       Photo copy of Legal notice dated 25-11-2009.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1        Photo copy of letter dated 07-01-2010.

Ex.B2        Photo copy of policy No.411300/31/2006/24517.

Ex.B3        Photo copy of letter issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant.

Sd/-                              Sd/-                              Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

// 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               :