Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/23/2013

Kakuru Nagaraja Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Manager,Shriram Genaral Insurance company ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanathana Bharath

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                             Date of filing       :  14-02-2013

                                                             Date of disposal   :  09-10-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Friday, this the  9th  day of OCTOBER, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

 

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                             

        

                                 C.C.No.23/2013

 

Kakuru Nagaraja Reddy,

S/o.Sesha Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 50 years,                                                                                Resident of Sai Nagar,

2^nd street, Near Children Park,

Nellore-2.                                                                                 …   Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                           

1. The Manager,

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Upstairs of Damro Furniture,

Mini Bye pass Road,

Nellore.

 

2. The Divisional Manager,

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

E & E.P.I.P. R.I.I.C.O., Industrial area,

Sitapura,

Jaipur, Rajasthan State.             

 

3. The Manager,

M/s.Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, Flat No.5, Omshanti Towers,

Rithwik Enclave, A.K.Nagar Post,

Nellore-524004.

 

(Added as per the orders Dt.29-04-2015 in

    I.A.No.42/2015)                                                   …    Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on  03-10-2015  before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sanathana Bharath, Advocate for the complainant and the 1^st opposite party remained absent,, Sri P.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and Sri P.Sreenivasa Rao, advocate for the 3^rd opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

          This consumer case is filed by the complainant against  the opposite parties 1 to 3 to direct them jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.8,50,000/- towards insurance amount payable under the policy no:10003/31/12/113319 relating to the vehicle which bearing no:AP 27 X 2518; to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards damages for his mental agony, financial loss and distress to the complainant and also to grant costs of the complaint and pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble District Consumer Forum may please to deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice.

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

I(a)    It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased Ashok Leyland tipper which is bearing Regd.no.:AP 27 X 2518 with the finance provided by the sister concern of the opposite parties namely M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., Nellore insured the said vehicle with the opposite parties through the 1^st opposite party on 25-03-2011 under policy no:10003/31/

12/113319 which was valid up to the midnight of 22-03-2012.  The said vehicle was purchased for eaking out his livelihood.  He had further submitted that for carrying out the contract works the said vehicle tipper along with two other tippers which were purchased them under hire-purchase for the said purpose and they were stationed at Saraswati Sisumandir at Kasipalem, Buhireddypalem village and mandal of SPSR Nellore District.

     While so, the said three vehicles were stolen in the month of September, 2011 and as such, the complainant gave a complaint to the police of Buchireddypalem and also to the opposite parties.  The police authorities after the enquiry was made and registered in the crime no.105/2011 on     24-09-2011.  When the police took up investigation and found that one Mr.Sirigiri Vijaya Kumar, S/o.Raghaiah of Damaramadugu village of Buchireddypalem, was the accused who had stolen the above said vehicle and the police sent the accused to the judicial custody.  The police also filed charge sheet before the Hon’ble Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovur.  The copies of FIR and Photostat copy of charge sheet are filed along with complaint. 

 (b)    It is also further submitted by the complainant at page no.2 of his

Complaint that he gave intimation to the opposite parties and also claimed the amounts covered under the said policy since some of the dismantled parts of the vehicle only recovered without any use and the theft is also covered under the policy.  The opposite parties should indemnify the loss sustained due to theft of the above said vehicle.  But, the opposite parties did not choose to respond and thereby the complainant got issued legal notices to the opposite parties on 27-10-2011; 13-03-2012 and 09-11-2012 but there is no response from them.   On the other hand, the opposite parties are pressuring the complainant through their sister concern i.e., M/s.Shriram Transport Co.Ltd., Nellore who is acting as a financier who collected post-date cheques to pay the finance installment amounts. The complainant also informed about the theft of the vehicles through a registered notice dt.14-11-2011 by way of reply.  Again, the complainant got issued a registered letter dt.13-03-2012 informing the 1^st opposite party about the theft of the vehicles and enclosing FIR copy and form-24 (B Register of Motor vehicles) with all required documents claiming the insurance amount but the opposite parties so far did not choose to settle the claim.  It is legal and bounden duty of the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount as assured by them when the vehicles were stolen.  Inspite of several approaches and requests of the complainant, the opposite parties did not choose to pay the claim amount so far, though more than a year had elapsed and so they had committed gross-negligence and also deficiency in service.  Actually, the complainant who is eaking out his     livelyhood through the earnings of said vehicles, had suffered a lot of financial loss, mental agony and much hardship.  So, the opposite parties are not only liable to pay the insured amount but also liable to pay the damages of Rs.4,00,000/-.  The opposite parties are also not settled the claim relating to the other two vehicles and the complainant is also filing separate complaints for the said two vehicles. 

 

( c )     It is also further submitted by the complainant at page no.3 of his

complaint that there are causes of action to file this complaint which are narrated in the last para of 3^rd page.  Hence, the complaint.

 

II.  DEFENCE:

      The opposite parties 2 and 3 were resisted the complaint by filing a separate written version/counter dt.19-06-2013 and 17-06-2015 respectively and denying the allegations of the complainant.  Those allegations are false and the complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts.

    The contents of written version  of 2^nd opposite party:

(i)It is submitted by 2^nd opposite party in para-3 of its written version that the complainant had obtained policy for the Tipper which is bearing no.AP-27-X2518 under policy bearing no.10003/31/12/113319 valid from 23-05-2011 to 22-05-2012.  The said policy is commercial vehicle package policy.  The liability of 2^nd opposite party is limited to the terms and conditions of the said policy.

(ii) It is also submitted by 2^nd opposite party in para-4 of its written version that the 2^nd opposite party was not aware about the complainant was carrying out the works the said tipper along with two other tippers which were purchased under hire-purchase and they were stationed at Saraswatisisu mandir, Kasipalem, Butchireddypalem village and mandal, Nellore District.  The said vehicles were stolen in the month of September, 2011, was not known to the 2^nd opposite party and subsequent events that took place later on.  The other allegations of the complainant in the complaint are all false and he is put strict proof of the same.

(iii) It is also submitted by the 2^nd opposite party in paras 5 and 6 of its written version that the opposite parties did not choose to settle the claim and due to that the complainant had suffered a lot of mental agony and also financial loss and non-payment of claim inspite of several days constitutes gross-negligence and deficiency in service, are all false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party had denied that the complainant had informed the theft intimation about the said vehicles immediately after the said incident.  The 2^nd opposite party was not having any branch in Nellore town.  The 2^nd opposite party had received a claim form from the complainant on 19-03-2012 and it constitutes a serious breach of condition of no.1 of the insurance policy.  The relevant policy conditions are reproduced for reference in 6^th para of its written version.

(iv) It is also further submitted by the 2^nd opposite party in paras-7 to 10 of its written version that as per the FIR the incident was took place on 21-09-2011 and said complainant had given complaint to the police on 24-09-2011.  There is a delay of 4 days in giving report to the police.  But, submitting the claim form to the 2^nd opposite party  on 19-03-2012 with delay of 121 days and it is not admissible as per the policy conditions and this 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  There is absolutely no deficiency in service of the 2^nd opposite party.  The above said complaint is full of false allegations and the complainant is liable to pay exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- to this 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant himself had declared that the vehicle in question had been under finance with 3^rd opposite party. 

(v)  In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- and also compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant.  Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may please to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

The contents of written version filed on behalf of the 3^rd opposite party:

(i)It is submitted by the 3^rd opposite party in paras-5 and 6 of its written version that the consumer dispute is in between complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2 only.  The 3^rd opposite party is in no way concern with the said dispute .The complainant filed this complaint against the 3^rd opposite party to pay the insurance amount if any awarded by this Hon’ble Forum and to enable the respondent to receive the said claim amount only.  Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may please to dismiss the complaint against the 3^rd opposite party with costs.

 

III.  The complainant had filed an affidavit as PW1 on 06-05-2014 and also his additional chief affidavit filed on 29-06-2015 and he had also filed  the documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A15; whereas the 2^nd opposite party had also filed its proof affidavit on 29-07-2015 as RW1 and the 3^rd opposite party also filed its chief affidavit on 29-07-2015 as RW2. The opposite parties 2 and 3 had filed the documents which are marked as Ex.B1 and B2.  The complainant had also filed his written arguments on 03-08-2015 and also filed additional written arguments on 15-09-2015; whereas the written arguments of the 2^nd opposite party filed on 24-08-2015 and 3^rd opposite party also filed its written arguments on 21-08-2015 in support of their case.

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

 

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

                   (c) To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

 

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint, affidavits and documents filed herein.  It is nothing but repetition of them once again.

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainant:

 

  The learned counsel for the complainant Sri S.Bharath, has vehemently argued that the reason for filing the complaint on behalf of the complainant is, because of utter deficiency in service by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in view of non-settling insurance claim with regard to the said vehicle tipper bearing registered No.AP 27 X 2518 which was purchased by the complainant with the finance provided by 3^rd opposite party (sister concern of the opposite parties 1 and 2).  He has also further argued that the said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties 1 and 2 on 23-05-2011 under the said policy and also stressed much that the documents Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of certificate-cum insurance policy proved the said alleged fact of insurance with the opposite parties 1 and 2.  The contentions of the said learned counsel for the complainant that Ex.A2 is the photo copy of FIR in crime no.105/2011 and Ex.A3 is Photostat copy of charge sheet and other documents proved the facts of insurance and theft of the said vehicle and report to the police thereafter.  It is not disputed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 as to the vehicle owner is the complainant and hire-purchase with opposite party No.3 (Ex.A15).  The said learned counsel for the complainant urged that the complainant got issued legal notices under Ex.A4 to the 2^nd opposite party and Ex.A6 to opposite party No.1 and Ex.A7 to opposite party No.2, proves that the fact of theft of said vehicle and subsequent events took place later on. Finally, the said learned counsel has further argued that the insured declared value of Rs.8,50,000/- under the said policy and the complainant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.  The 1st opposite party did not turn up to contest the case inspite of several adjournments granted by the Hon’ble Forum with ulterior object to evade the payment of claim amount under the said insurance policy and an adverse inference can be drawn in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the 2^nd opposite party had not issued any such repudiation letter nor any surveyor has been appointed to assess damage and loss of the said vehicle.  It is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may please to allow the complaint as prayed for. 

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party:

 

  On the other hand, the learned counsel of the 2^nd opposite party Sri P.V.Mallikarjuna reddy, has also vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments.  He has also further contended that the complainant is not a consumer but admitted the policy in question with regard to the said vehicle and the 2^nd opposite party is not aware of the theft of the vehicles of complainant and received the claim forms with delay from the complainant. 

   The said learned counsel has further argued that as per the policy conditions of the said vehicle, there is a delay of 4 days in giving report to the police and further alleged that there is no deficiency in service and negligence of the 2^nd opposite party and cited decisions in support of his case in written arguments.  Finally, the said learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party has prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may please to dismiss the complaint as prayed for.  

 

The Oral arguments  of the 3rd opposite party:

   Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel for the 3^rd opposite party has also vehemently argued that there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is no way concern with the present consumer dispute between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 and the 3^rd opposite party is entitled to receive the amount granted by the Hon’ble Forum, as a financier of the said vehicle.  Finally, the said learned counsel has prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may please to dismiss the complaint against the 3^rd opposite party as prayed for.

  

Forum’s Findings and observations

       Heard, the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the record very carefully. The nature of liability under the C.P.Act, 1986 is not strict liability but fault liability. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and produced their documentary evidence.

      To appreciate the controversy, it would be an appropriate if we narrate all the circumstances of the case both on question of fact as well as question of law in detail.  The basic facts of the case are not disputed and repetition of them are here avoided.

 

The concept of Insurance:

 

   Because of uncertainty of human life as well as perils/risks in trade or industry, insurance business had developed and is developing.  The concept of insurance coverage springs from the principle of indemnity.  The insurance company accepts the liability to indemnify the insured for the loss suffered by her/him due to peril against the consideration (premium) received by it.  But in actual practice, the insurer by showing mandatory provisions of rules and regulations framed by them in order to turn down the pleas of insured  while disbursing the valid claims of insured at their convenience.  Foundation of insurance contract is uberrima fides i.e., good faith and not fraud.  Insurer and insured must observe utmost good faith.  The duty of good faith is of a continuing nature.  In case of ambiguity or doubt in terms of the policy it should be interpreted in favour of the insured and against the company – LIC Vs.Rajkumar (1999) 3 SCC 465.

While the Forum is excising sovereign function of dispensation of justice, it is worthwhile to remember once that the proceedings before the Consumer Fora are inquisitorial but not adversary.  The orders are required to pass in accordance with justice and equity on the basis of the evidence available on record.  Primarily, the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 is for the protection of the consumers and matters are required to be decided by having a rationale approach and non-technical one i.e., the mandate of law.  This is made clear in the case of Indian Photographic Co. Ltd. Vs. H.D.Shourie 1999(6) S.C.C.428.  Every case has to be judged on its own facts. 

 

About appreciation of evidence – It is a question of fact and each case has to be decided on the facts as they stand in that particular case.  We have bestowed our best of consideration to the rival submissions of the parties.  In these set of circumstances, it is apparent that there is a deficiency of service in discharging of duties by the opposite parties 1 and 2 herein by showing irrelevant reasons, such as F.I.R. for which the opposite parties 1 and 2 are required to pay adequate compensation would certainly mean that she is deprived of benefit which she was entitled for years together, she should be adequately compensated.  Measure for adequate compensation can be a lump sum amount may be a reasonable rate of interest by way of damages. 

      In the case of Hukum chand  Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.1(2014) CPJ 193(NC), the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, it was held that petitioner is entitled to 75% of IDV value on non-standard basis, along with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing of complaint  till realization and it was decided on 07-10-2013.  It is also held in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.,Vs.Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008)  CPJ 1(SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in case of theft of the vehicle breach of conditions is not germane.  In that case also vehicle was insured for personal use and it was being used by complainant as taxi, even then, the order of the State Commission allowing 75% claim   on non-standard basis which was upheld  by the National Commission, and it was upheld also by the Hon’ble Apex Court.  The facts of the case, is very much suitable to the case on hand.  In view of above said decisions, it can be said that   the complainant is entitled to 75% of the IDV Value on non-standard basis along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the complaint till date of realization.

   

     It is well-settled law that it is for the insured to establish its claim for indemnification of the insured loss.  The Hon’ble Supreme of India in United Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. M.K.J.Corporation (1996)6 SCC 428 has held that it is a fundamental principle of Insurance law that utmost faith must be observed by the contracting parties. 

1. Complainant must prove his claim by reliable evidence – 2011 (3) CPR 449 (NC).

2.  One  who makes an allegation is required to prove it beyond doubt – 2011 (2) CPR 46 (NC).

3.  Consumer For a can award  compensation as deemed proper, reasonable   and not as per   asking of complainant – 2011 (2) CPR 282 (NC).

4.  Complaint is based on deficiency in service  must establish the same by leading cogent evidence  - 2011 (2) CPR 68 (NC).

5. In the case of consumer disputes redressal Forums, the judgments must set out the points in dispute and a decision on those points supported by some reasons – 1995 (I) CPR 832 (NC).

6. Repeated deficiency in service of the service provider amounts to gross deficiency in it’s service for which the consumer has to be adequately compensated by it which is reported in  2010 C.T.J. (N.C.) 1159.

7.  A quasi – judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions  - 2011 CTJ (SC) (CP) 128.

8. Insurance claim is to be settled within two months of submission of material documents otherwise, the insured is entitled to interest @9% on the awarded claim amount – 2005 (2) CPR 640.

 

Compensation:-

 

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s and Hon’ble A.P.State Commission’s decisions on the topic of compensation:-  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarath Vs.Shantilal Mangaladas, AIR 1969 SC 634 discussed about award of compensation.  The compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable, held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  Chansingh Vs.Healing Touch Hospital and others III(2000) CPJ1 (SC) and also stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the Consumer and the change it brings in the attitude of the service provider.

       These decisions are referred by the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission in the case of Ramayanam Varun Kumar Vs.  Gannavaram Technical Training centre and another which is reported in I (2015) CPJ page 1 (AP), which awarding compensation to Appellant/complainant. Compensation or damages can be  awarded only, if complainant has suffered loss or  damages due to negligence of manufacturer or service provider  - 2011 (2) CPR 101     (NC).

Reasons for the order:-

1.Description of documents and its relevancy to the facts of the present case:

 

  Ex.A1 is the certificate of insurance and insured declared value is Rs.8,50,000/-.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 on their own accord and satisfaction, fixed insured declared value of the said vehicle (IDV).    The legal notices (Exs.A4 and A7) are proved that the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties.  Exs.B1 and B2 are the vital documents relating to the policy of the said vehicle speaks about the insurance and at the same time the claim form of the complainant.  These documents are essential to prove the case of the complainant.     

2.  The consumer dispute is actually between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2.  Financier, 3^rd opposite party is not concern to the present dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties.

     In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and with regard to points of fact and law, we are of the opinion that the said learned counsel for the complainant has convinced us with his oral arguments of the case.  We have considered the rival submission of the said learned counsel for the parties. There is a lot of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards complainant.  Law assists those who are vigilant.  Justice is rendered in accordance with law.  Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. We are satisfied that it is a fit case, where in we have to give the reliefs to the complainant. These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties 1 and 2, accordingly.

 

POINT NO.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the opposites 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 75% of Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty thousand only) I.D.V.(Insured Delcared Value) on non-standard basis towards the insurance amount under policy bearing No.10003/31/12/113319 relating to the vehicle No.AP 27 X 2518 to the complainant from the date of the complaint i.e.,14-02-2013 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/-   (Rupees one lakh only) towards damages for his mental agony, financial loss and distress and also to pay costs of  Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).  The complaint against the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed without costs, in the interests of the justice, accordingly.

  

    The above said reliefs are ordered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties 1 and 2 are to be paid within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 9th day of OCTOBER, 2015.    

 

            Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

       MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT(FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

06-05-2014         AND   29-06-2015

:

Kakuru Nagaraja Reddy, S/o.Sesha Reddy, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at Sai Nagar, near Children’s park, Nellore-2.   K.Nagaraja Reddy, S/o.Sesha Reddy, age 56 Yrs, Business, Residing at #16-15-961, 2nd street, Sri Krishna Nagar, Near Children’s park, Nellore.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1     RW2

29-07-2015     29-07-2015

:     :

M.A.Shabbeer, S/o.Abdul Sattar, Hindu, Employee, aged about 38 years and residing at Hyderabad.   Mr.Tatiboyena Kondala Rao, S/o.Malakondaiah, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Sr.Recovery Executive and Authorized representative of the Company.

                                                                              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	23-05-2011	:	Photostat copy of Certificate cum policy schedule policy bearing No.10003/31/12/113319 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A2	24-09-2011	:	Photostat copy of F.I.R.No.105/2011 was registered in Buchireddypalem P.S.
Ex.A3	-	:	Photostat copy of charge sheet in the court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovur.
Ex.A4	24-10-2011	:	Photostat copy of legal notice got issued by the advocate for the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A5     Ex.A6     Ex.A7       Ex.A8     Ex.A9       Ex.A10       Ex.A11       Ex.A12     Ex.A13     Ex.A14       Ex.A15	14-11-2011     13-03-2012     09-11-2012       24-09-2011     30-01-2012       27-06-2015       27-06-2015       -     18-03-2015     23-05-2011       08-04-2008	:     :     :       :     :       :       :       :     :     :       :	Photostat copy of reply got issued by the advocate for the complainant to the opposite parties’ counsel.   Photostat copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.   Photostat copy of legal notice got issued by the advocate for the complainant to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.   Photostat copy of FIR No.105/2011, Buchireddy palem P.S.   Photostat copy of charge sheet filed before the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kovur in C.C.No.108/2012.   Downloaded copy of “Financial Services” under Shriram Group from the web site: WWW.Shriram.com.   Downloaded copy of elements of coverage under “Commercial Vehicle Insurance” from WWW.Shriramgi.com.   O/c. of the petition in Cr.M.P.No.543/2015 in C.C.No.108/2012 on the file of Addl. JMFC, Kovur.   Copy of counter in Cr.M.P.No.543/2015 in C.C.No.108/2012 by R-2/Accused counsel.   Certificate cum policy schedule of policy no.1003/31/12/113319 registration of vehicle bearing No.AP 27 X 2518.   Photostat copy of certificate of registration.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

Ex.B1	23-05-2011	:	Photostat copy of Certificate cum policy schedule (Miscellaneous class D Vehicles – Package policy – zone C) the Tipper bearing No.AP-27-X-2518 under the policy bearing No.10003/31/12/113319 valid from 23-05-2011 to 22-05-2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant along with copy of compliance of section 64 VB.
Ex.B2	-	:	Photostat copy of the motor insurance claim form submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties.

 

 

             Id/-                                                                                      PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri S.Bhaarath, Advocate, #304, Sri Sailakshmi Residency, 2^nd left street, Tekkemitta, Nellore – 524 003, A.P.

 

2. The Manager,Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Upstairs of Damro Furniture,Mini Bye pass Road, Nellore.

 

3. Sri P.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate, 24/2/1456, Military Colony, 1^st line, Dargamitta, Nellore- 524 004 (A.P.).

 

4. Sri P.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate,Muthyalapalem, Nellore.

          

 

Date when order copies are issued: