BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Tuesday the 4th day of November, 2008
C.C.No. 170/07
Between:
K.Khaja Basha, S/o. K.Sayeed Ahammed,
D.No.4-15-2, Balaji Nagar, Kurnool.
… Complainant
Versus
1. The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
3rd Floor, Above Mallik Cars, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. R.R. Insurance Services,
Shop No.14, HDCT Complex, Kurnool.
… Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Azmathulla, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is called absent set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President )
C.C.No.170/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 2 (1) (g ) and 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.2 ,91,980/- towards the repair charges , Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony , interest at 18% p.a and cost of the case alleging that the lorry bearing No.KA–07-4083 originally belonged to P. Obulesh son of Nagalappa Chitamani, Village of Kolar District as purchased by the complainant the insurance policy pertaining to the said lorry was also transfer to complainant vide transfer endorsement No.18-23-14-004104-77-001– 06 on payment of required fees by the complainant to the opposite party through its agent ( opposite party No.2) the period of said policy bearing No. 80-23-14-004104-06 was for period from 11-12-2006 to 11-12-2007 covering the risk to the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- and during subsistence of said policy the said lorry met with accident on 25-12-2006 and as major damaged occurred to said lorry towards repairs an amount of Rs.2,91,180/- incurred and the surveyor of the opposite party assessed the said damaged to Rs.2,35,080/-and the opposite party did not respond to the claim inspite of submission of all relevant documents and legal notice dated 17-09-2007 ensured mental agony and driven the complainant to the forum for redressal.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite party No.2 remained exparte to the case by his absence , the opposite party No.1 caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filling written version denying its liability to the complainants claim.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case and requiring strict proof of the complaint averments , pleads ignorance of the complainant and his alleged ownership to the alleged lorry with met with accident and denies said accident during any subsistence of the policy to the liability of the opposite party for damages and incurred expenditure for repairs and any genuine claim from the complainant as the submitted bills were irrelevant , fake and with exorbitant rates to have wrongful gain and the case of the complainant is in suppression of material facts as the insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the complainant from his earlier owner till 9-1-2007 while the transfer of policy is to be made within 14 days from date of transfer of vehicle and so any insurable interest to the complainant on 25-12-2006 i..e on the date of accident and the surveyor vide his report dated 25-07-2007 assessed the loss to Rs.55,000/- only and not Rs.2,55,080/- and hence for want proper cause of action seeks the dismissal of complaint awarding Rs.20,000/- to it as exemplary cost.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 and A2 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B4 and the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 .
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties holding their liability to the complainant’s claim.
6. The policy No.80-23-14-004104 -06 issued by the opposite party stood in the name of P. Obulesh insuring the vehicle bearing No. KA– 07- 4083 covering the period of risk from 00-00 hours of 11-13(12) -2006 to 11-12-2007 . The legal notice dated 17-9-2007 in Ex.A1 got issued by complainant to opposite party No.1 takes erroneous mention of the said policy as issued in the name of the complainant i.e., K. Khaja Basha .
7. The complaint avers consequent to the purchase of said vehicle from P.Obulesh the said policy got transferred on to the complainant vide endorsement No.18-23-14-004104-77-001-06 paying the requisite fees to the opposite party through his agent ( opposite party No.2) The Ex.A2 said endorsement shows its effective date from 9-1-2007. As the alleged accident dated to 25-12-2006 and as the Ex.A2 transfer endorsement in favour of the complainant shows its effective date from 9-1-2007 only , the complainant appears to have been any insurance interest under the Ex.A1 insurance policy for claiming any accident insurance claim over the said vehicle . Nor the complaint averments nor his affidavit averments disposes the material particulars as to the date of the purchase of said vehicle by complainant from said P.Obulesh to deem any defacto interest of insurance to the complainant in the insured vehicle on the date of accident .
8. when the complainant is having any insurable interest under the said policy in Ex.A1 on the date of accident for want of any transfer endorsement in his favour prior to the date of said accident , the bunch of bills in Ex.B3 and quotation as to estimate of accident lorry appearing in Ex.B4 said to have been submitted with claim and the survey report in Ex.A2 remains of any consequence and avail to the complainant and therefore in not entertaining the claim of the complainant there appears any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 .
9. Hence for want of proper cause of action the case of the complainant remains with devoid of merit and force creating any liability of the opposite parties to the complainants claim .
10. Consequently, the case of the complainant is dismissed against both the opposite parties for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 4th day of November, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
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. Office copy of the legal notice dated 17-09-2007 along with
postal receipts and acknowledgement.
Ex.A2. Transfer endorsement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Policy schedule cum-certificate of insurance of policy
No.18-23-14-004104-06 period from 11-12-2006 to
11-12-2007 along with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2. Motor survey report dated 25-07-2007 of E.Mukund Insurance
Surveyor and loss assessor, Kurnool.
Ex.B3. A bunch of 16 bills.
Ex.B4. Quotation issued to OP.No.1 as to the estimate of accidental
Lorry bearing No.KA074083.
Sd/- Sd/-
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 :
