Andhra Pradesh
Nellore
CC/91/2013
Yadala Sudhamma Alias Yeddala Sudhamma - Complainant(s)
Versus
1.The SBI General Insurance Company ltd Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)
S.V.V.S.S.Durgaprasad
12 Feb 2016
ORDER
Date of filing : 19-07-2013
Date of disposal : 12-02-2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
:: NELLORE ::
Friday, this the 12th day of FEBUARY, 2016.
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.91/2013
Yadala Sudhamma,
Alias Yeddala Sudhamma
W/o.Gangaiah,
Hindu, Female, aged about 29 years,
Residing at D.No.1-35,
Chinna Ulsapadava village,
Sullurpet Mandal,
Nellore District. … Complainant
Vs.
- The S.B.I.General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager,
6-3-669, 3rd floor,
Ozone building,
Panjagutta, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad – 500 082.
- The State Bank of India,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Sullurpet,
Nellore District. … Opposite parties
This matter coming on 01-02-2016 before us for final hearing in the presence of
Sri S.V.V.S.S.Durga Prasad Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri D.V.R.Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri K.Sesha Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd 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 and 2 to direct them to pay the insurance claim amount for Rs.3,95,626/- with interest @12% p.a., from the date of accident i.e., 04-10-2012 till the date of realization and credit the said amount to the loan account of the complainant with interest till the date of accident and refund the balance amount to him, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages of mental agony financial loss and distress and also to grant costs of this Consumer case and to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may pleased 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.(i) It is the case of the complainant that she had purchased one tractor bearing registration no.AP26 AF 6221 through finance provided by the 1st opposite party for their agricultural purposes and eaking out for their livelihood. The 2nd opposite party had hypothecated the above said vehicle insured it with the 1st opposite party, who is its sister concerned. The 1st opposite party had issued a policy bearing No.0000000000226422 for insured value of Rs.3,95,626/- after collecting the insurance premium of Rs.6,782/- from the complainant on 17-3-2012. The said policy was in force from 14-3-2012 to 13-3-2013.
While so, on 04-10-2012, the husband of the complainant had ploughed the field at Janagalagunta (V) and returned to China Ulsa Padava(V) while going or the said tractor at Mannemutheri (V) due to light failure, accidentally the said tractor fell down in Putchakalava along with the husband of the complainant in the Puchakalava and on seeing the villagers, took him from Puchakalava and due to the said accident of the tractor, it was completely damaged. The same was reported to the police authorities of Sullurpet Police station and also to the opposite parties immediately. The 2nd opposite party and his field officer were also visited the spot of the accident and found that the vehicle was completely damaged. They had also suggested that the complainant should handover the said vehicle to the authorized service show room i.e., M/s.Sri Vigneswara International, Tractors, Naidupeta for assessing the damages and the value of the said vehicle for payment of the insurance claim.
(ii) It is also further submitted by the complainant at page no.2 of her complaint that as per the opposite parties advised that she had brought the said vehicle to the said Sri Vigneswara International Tractors, as suggested by the 2nd opposite party and handed over the said vehicle to it. The opposite parties had also examined the damaged vehicle with the representative of the 2nd opposite party i.e., Sri Venu. The said Vigneswara International Tractors, Head office, Gudur had estimated the damage to a tune of Rs.4,09,200/- and issued the estimation of it dated 19-10-2012. The complainant had submitted the said estimate along with the claim form with all original documents as required by the opposite parties for processing the claim to the 2nd opposite party and inspite of several approaches and requests, the opposite parties did not choose to pay the claim amount to the complainant. But on 12-12-2012, 2nd opposite party had obtained signature of the complainant on Rs.20/- bond non-judicial stamp paper typed as consent letter, leaving the blank on the amount towards the full and final settlement of the claim and informed to the 1st opposite party, will pay the said claim amount in full IDV of Rs.3,95,626/- and the same will be adjusted to the loan account and refund the amount, if any, and pressurized the complainant to sign on the said letter by saying that the same is required for paying the full insurance claim. The complainant had believed the promises and words of 2nd opposite party, signed on the above said consent letter, though they kept blanks without mentioning the said amount.
(iii) It is also further submitted by the complainant at page no.3 of her complaint that in spite of her several approaches and requests the opposite parties did not choose to pay the claim amount and postponing the same on some pretext or other. She got issued a letter dt.3-4-2013 to the opposite parties and requested to pay the said claim amount. But surprisingly, the 1st opposite party sent a letter dt.13-4-2013 stating that they will settle the claim on cash loss basis as per the opinion of their surveyor and further they stated that their surveyors assessed the liability at Rs.48,123/- under cash loss settlement and the same was revised to Rs.53,988/- as per IRDA Surveyor and payment was made to the credit loan account bearing no.30956737045 by cheque no.011519 dt.18-3-2013, with all false and baseless allegations to evade payment of genuine insurance claim. The said surveyor had never approached that Sri Vigneswara International tractor service show room centre or the complainant. But surprisingly, 1st opposite party sent a letter stating that as per IRDA Surveyor, Mr.Ravindra Reddy, they had passed the claim for Rs.53,988/-, instead of giving full assured value of Rs.3,95,626/-. It is further submitted by the complainant that how the said surveyor had assessed the loss without inspecting, that the said vehicle and the same had no basis. The 2nd opposite party sent threatening notice dt.17-04-2013 demanding the complainant to pay the outstanding amount with interest, though it is their duty to pay the insured value and adjust the same to the loan account and they had failed to pay the insurance claim so far. The 2nd opposite party is also jointly liable to pay the insurance amount and adjust it to her loan account since he himself collected the insurance premium and paid the same to their sister concern who is the 1st opposite party. The complainant is not liable to pay interest on the outstanding amount from the date of accident of the said vehicle i.e., from 04-10-2012, since the opposite parties had failed to pay and adjust the full insurance amount relating to her vehicle. The complainant had again sent letters dated 17-5-2013; 17-6-2013 and requested to pay the said insurance claim amount of Rs.3,95,626/-. But, the opposite parties had kept quiet and committed gross negligence and deficiency in service.
(iv) It is further submitted by the complainant that in page no.4 of her complaint that it is the legal and bounden duty of the opposite parties to pay the full insurance claim and adjust the said amount to its loan amount and to refund the balance, if any. But, the opposite parties had failed to do the same and giving evasive replies by stating that the said vehicle is not yet dismantled or get it repaired. The service show room people informed that unless the said amount paid by the insurance company, they will not attend to the work. So, the attitude of the opposite parties in not paying the insurance amount as promised by them, which clearly goes to show their sheer negligence and deficiency in service. Because of that complainant had suffered a lot of mental agony and incurred financial loss and also put to mental distress.
(v) There are causes of action to file the complaint which are narrated in page no.5 of complaint. Hence, the complaint.
II. DEFENCE:
The contents of written version filed by the 1st opposite party:-
1. The 1st opposite party was resisted the complaint by denying the allegations of the complainant in her complaint. The complaint is not just and sustainable at Law.
2. It is submitted by the 1st opposite party in para-3 of its written version that at the time of accident, it is true that the insured vehicle was covered under the said policy subject to the terms and conditions of it. It may be read as part and parcel of this written version. The said vehicle was placed for repair in Sri Vigneswara international tractors, Gudur towards repairs to the damaged vehicle of the complainant. The loss estimation of it was provided by concerned authorities and submitted to the 1st opposite party stating that total cost of its estimation, is about of Rs.4,09,200/- to repair the damaged vehicle as per estimation dt.19-10-2012.
3. It is also submitted by the 1st opposite party in para-4 of its written version that after receiving necessary documents from the complainant, this 1st opposite party had appointed an IRDA licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor to investigate and assess the loss in respect of the above said claim and submitted his report. The said investigator had inspected the accident of the said vehicle spot and assessed that an amount of Rs.68,478/- had to be incurred for repairs of the said vehicle, the copy of spot investigation by him and his report dt.09-11-2012. The insured vehicle was left unattended even after 4 months of accident. An insured was not in a condition to get the vehicle repaired, the 1st opposite party wants to settle the claim of the complainant and gave an option of cash loss settlement for which insured had agreed and gave an blank consent on Rs.20/- stamp paper dt.12-12-2012 and further requested to process the claim under cash loss basis and wanted to retain her vehicle and had no objection to cancel the policy with effect from the date of accident and to release the payment in favour of the insured. But the insured vehicle was under hypothecation agreement with State Bank of India, Sullurupeta and settlement amount to be made to the financier. The complainant had not responded properly to the 1st opposite party on telephonic calls and its correspondence exchanged between them. The 1st opposite party wrote a letter dt.13-04-2013 to the complainant to submit further documentation in respect of her claim. Earlier also, the 1st opposite party sent another letter requesting to provide bank account details but the said letter was refused by the complainant. So, the 1st opposite party had rightly paid an amount of Rs.53,988/- to her bank account under valid cheque dt.18-3-2013 bearing no.011519 as the loan was availed earlier from State Bank of India, Sullurpet branch under loan account no.30956737045.
4. It is also further submitted by the 1st opposite party in para-5 of its written version that suppressing the facts, the complainant got issued legal notice through her counsel with false and incorrect statements against 1st opposite party and other opposite party and later on she filed the above complaint with a view to get a wrongful gain. The complainant had not filed the said legal notice before the Hon’ble Consumer Forum and not submitted any bills paid by her to Sri Vigneswara International tractors, Naidupeta towards repairs where the said vehicle was placed after the accident of it. The 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as 1st opposite party had discharged its liability under the said policy by paying righteous claim proceeds to the bank and so all the allegations against the 1st opposite party are false, frivolous and not supported by any cogent documentary proof. It is prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above said complaint against 1st opposite party with costs.
The contents of written version filed by the 2nd opposite party:-
(i)The basic facts of availing loan and accident of the said vehicle are not disputed by the 2nd opposite party also. The 2nd opposite – bank filed officer had visited the accident spot and inspected the said tractor. It is false to say that showroom authorities had estimated the damages to a tune of Rs.4,09,200/-. It is also false to say that obtaining the signature of the complainant on non-judicial bond paper on consent letter.
(ii)It is also further submitted by the 2nd opposite party in paras 5 to 9 of its written version that the complainant is not regular in payment of the amount installments due under her loan account and paid only Rs.1,93,855/- for the period from 13-11-2009 to 20-06-2012. He had failed to pay the installments due to the 2nd opposite party. An amount of Rs.5,14,708/- is due on 6-1-2014 by the complainant in her loan account. The complainant had accepted for settlement of his claim by the 1st opposite party by signing in the letter dt.12-12-2012. The 1st opposite party sent Rs.53,988/- to the 2nd opposite party and it is credited to her loan account. The 2nd opposite party is only facilitator and not related with regard to the payment of the claim amount. The payment of the claim by the 2nd opposite party does not arise. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party towards the complainant. It is prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
III. The complainant had filed his chief-affidavit on 19-02-2015 and the documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A11 on her behalf whereas the 1st opposite party had also filed its chief-affidavit on 4-3-2015 and the documents were marked as Exs.B5 to B9; on behalf of 2nd opposite party filed also its chief-affidavit on 20-1-2014 and the documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B4. All the parties had also filed their written arguments of the case in support of them.
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 and documents filed herein. It is nothing but repetition of them once again in his complaint.
Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainant:
Sri S.V.V.S.S.Durga Prasad Rao, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant’s husband is an agriculturist and eaking out their livelihood by purchasing one tractor bearing no: AP-26F-6221 by her under hypothecation with opposite party No.2, the insurance provided by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party had issued the said policy for insured value of Rs.3,95,626/- after collecting the insurance premium of Rs.6,782/- from the complainant’s husband on 17-03-2012 and the said policy was in force from 14-03-2012 to 13-03-2012. He has further contended that on 04-10-2012, the complainant’s husband fell down accidently from the said tractor and other facts further are not denied. The 1st opposite party had obtained signature of complainant on bond paper in blank and got the consent letter from her and promised the claim amount to be settled but in practice, denied by the 1st opposite party.
While narrating the subsequent events after the accident of the said vehicle by the said learned counsel for the complainant again stressed much that the 1st opposite party has to pay the said claim amount in full I.D.V. of Rs.3,95,626/- and the same should be adjusted to loan account and to refund it, if any, to her. During the course of his oral arguments of the case of the complainant, he has further urged that the Ex.A1 is the Photostat copy of insurance policy with covering letter; Ex.A2; is the photo copy of accident dt.11-10-2012 certificate issued by S.I. of Police, Sullurupet P.S.; Ex.A3 is the Photostat copy of estimation of costs of repairs of the said vehicle; Ex.A4 is the consent letter dt.12.12.2012 and Exs.A5 to 9 documents as marked represents the exchange of letters between the complainant and the opposite parties and all these documents are may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments of the case. Finally, the said learned counsel for the complainant has prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,95,626/- with interest at 12% from the date of accident and Rs.50,000/- compensation payable towards damages to her with costs.
Oral arguments of the learned counsel for the 1st opposite party:
Sri D.V.R.Kiran Kumar, the learned counsel for the 1st opposite party has vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments.
He has further argued that the 1st opposite party had appointed a licensed IRDA insurance Surveyor and loss assessor to investigate into the accident of the said vehicle. The said surveyor had assessed loss of Rs.68,748/- only submitted his report(Ex.B6). He has also further contended that the complainant left the said vehicle unattended even after 4 months and she was not in possession to get it repaired the said vehicle. Then, the 1st opposite party had provided an option to the complainant on cash loss settlement for which she gave her consent on stamped paper dt.12.12.2012 and basing on this, processed her claim and amount to be made to financier only as the said vehicle was under hypothecation to SBI, Naidupeta. Later on, there was no response from the complainant inspite of telephonic calls from the 1st opposite party. He has also further argued that the complainant had suppressed the facts of the case and got issued legal notice (Ex.B1) and later on filed the complaint to get wrongful gain the complainant was also unattended even after four months and she was not in a position to get her vehicle repaired and first opposite party gave an option on cash loss settlement and for which she had agreed and gave consent letter on stamped paper Ex.A4 dated 12-12-2012 and basing on that 1st opposite party processed her claim and as a procedure the amount paid to the financier only as the said tractor was under hypothecation to the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter, there was no reply from her inspite of letters addressed to her. As there was no reply from her, the 1st opposite party paid an amount of Rs.53,988/- on cash loss facility to the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter, the said learned counsel for the 1st opposite party filed additional written arguments on behalf of the insurance company and further contended that the affidavit of the said surveyor should be looked into while assessing the merits of the case. Finally, he has prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may pleased to dismiss the case with costs
Oral arguments of the learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party:
Sri K.Sesha Reddy, the learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party has vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments. He has further argued that the field officer of 2nd opposite party visited the accident spot and inspected the said tractor of the complainant. It is not correct to state that the said field officer suggested her to send the said vehicle to the show-room by name Sri Vigneswara International Tractors, Gudur for repair purpose and also denied its estimation charges for repair of it to a tune of Rs.4,09,200/-. The 2nd opposite party had denied the other allegations made by the complainant in her complaint. The 2nd opposite party was not aware that the employee of insurance company obtained a consent letter from her on 12-12-2012.
During the course of oral arguments of the said learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party had stressed much about the fact that the complainant was not in regular payment of the installments due under her loan account and paid only Rs.1,93,855/- for the period from 13-11-2009 to 29-06-2012. An amount of Rs.5,14,708/- was due on 06-01-2014 as per the statement of her loan account (Ex.B8). She is appears to be careless and accepted for settlement of her claim. Exs.B5 is the copy of legal notice dt.03-04-2013 issued by the complainant. Ex.B6 is the reply notice dt.12-04-2013 issued by 2nd opposite party and they may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments of 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is acting as facilitator. All the claims of the complainant, is the sole responsibility of insurance company (OP.No.1) and added 2nd opposite party as a party unnecessarily and not related with regard to the payment of claim amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party towards the complainant. Finally, the said learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party has prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
Forum’s Findings and observations
Heard, the learned counsel for all the parties in this consumer case and we have perused the record very carefully. Parties led their evidence by way of chief-affidavits and documents. The case is lingering on since 2 ½ years for decision of it for some reasons or the other. The respective counsels for their parties have submitted oral arguments of the case. The every case has to judge on its own facts. It is the cardinal principle of Law that one who makes allegations, is required to prove it by beyond reasonable doubt. He who seeks equity from the Courts must come with clean hands.
To appreciate the controversy in this consumer case, it would be appropriate if we narrate all the circumstances of the case both on question of facts as well as Law in detail. Before we precede the matter further, it requires understanding the concept of insurance.
The concept of Insurance- Law:
Insurance is an important service sector specifically covered under the definition of “service” in Section-2(1)(o) of C.P.Act, 1986. Because of un-certainty of human life as well as perils/risks in trade or industry, insurance business had developed and it is still developing now. The concept insurance coverage springs from principle of indemnity. The insurance company accepts the liability to indemnify the insured for the loss suffered by 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 turned down the pleas of insured while disbursing the valid claims of insured at their convince.
Foundation of insurance contract is uberrima fides i.e., good faith and not fraud. Insurer and insured both of them must observe utmost good faith. The duty of the good faith is of a continuous nature. The consumer Forum is primarily would function on the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.
This Consumer Case is illustrating here, how the purpose of insurance coverage for indemnifying contemplated peril is frustrated by one or the method adopted by the insurance company (1st opposite party) in casual manner in which insurance coverage is granted without proper verification and thereafter it is sought to be avoided on one or the other pretext. The factual position is required to be established by the documentary evidence by all the parties.
Case-Law:
(i) In Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC), it was held that policy is only for indemnification of actual loss and not intended to generate profit.
(ii) In case of ambiguity or doubt in terms of the policy, it should be interrupted in favour of the insured and against the insurance company – LIC Vs. Raj Kumar (1999)3 SCC 465.
(iii) In case of Dharmendra Goel Vs.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., SLP No.14054 of 2006 decided on 30-07-2008, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has directed payment as per I.D.V. of the vehicle.
(iv) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions – 2011 CTJ (SC)(CP)135.
(v) The report of an insurance surveyor is an importance piece of evidence. It has to be relied upon unless it is proved by some cogent and reliable evidence – that it could not relied upon – 2010 CTJ 21(NC).
(vi) An insurance surveyor being an expert, is required to give reasons for disallowing or partly allowing the claim preferred by an insured – 2010 CTJ 148(NC).
(vii) The policy of the Courts is to stand by precedents and not disturb the settle issues. The principle is based on judicial comity – 2010 CTJ 413 (NC).
(viii) Section 14 of C.P.Act, 1986 permits award of interest on refund of money and award of compensation depending on the facts of the case.
(ix) It is the decision of the Supreme Court in Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.2002 (2) SCC 734 where it is observed.
“It is the fundamental Principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties know. The insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the insurance company and its agents to disclose all material facts in their knowledge since the obligation of good faith applies to both equally”. There is yet another decision in this context that in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M.K.J.Corporation 1996(6) SCC 438, the Supreme Court declared good faith as the very essence of a contract of insurance. The duty of good faith is of a continuing nature.
(x) Repeated deficiency in service of the service provider amounts to gross deficiency in its service for which the Consumer has to be adequately compensated by it – 2010 CTJ (NC)1159.
(xi) When large amounts are involved it is incumbent on insurer to settle claim at earliest and burden is on insurer to explain satisfactorily the delay in setting the claim.
(xii) Consumer Forums can grant compensation for mental agony harassment where they find misfeasance in public office. Such compensation is a recompense for the loss or injury and it necessarily has to co-relate with the amount of loss or injury – 2005 CTJ(SC)(CP) page no.130.
Lapses on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant:
1. Nowhere, it is stated that repudiation of the claim of the complainant in the said letter dated 28-02-2013(Ex.B7) and dated 13-04-2013 Ex.B8 of the 1st opposite party for the reasons best known to it.
2. The 1st opposite party had neither settled the claim in full nor repudiated the claim of the complainant by way of letter. Simply, obtaining the signature of the complainant in the alleged consent letter (Ex.A4) by the 2nd opposite party without filling up blanks and particulars in it, does not serve any purpose and it will not satisfy the complainant. Why the 1st opposite party had noted down in the policy by stating that in the portion of “own damage section” sum insured Rs.3,95,626/-? The 1st opposite party had already received premium from the complainant from the year 2009 till 2012 and afterwards renewed it till the accident of the vehicle.
3. We find that no good explanation is there for the delayed payment of Rs.53,988/- and credited in the account of the complainant on 05-4-2013 and it is more time after the report of the said surveyor dated 09-11-2012 as per Exs.B4 and B6.
4. There was no signature of the insurer in the consent letter Ex.A4 except the signature of the insured. The 2nd opposite party has to say about the contents of the consent letter on non-judicial stamp of Rs.20/- signed by insured only and why it is not filled up? And is it justified action on the part of the second opposite party – bank. Ex.A4 is the vital document. Certainly, it (OP2) is so negligent in its attitude. According to the said surveyor one Mr.Ravindra Reddy’s report dated 09-11-2012 even though he was conducted survey of the said vehicle on 05-10-2012 and its observation that the said vehicle tractor was badly damaged as per particulars and contents, damages were noted down by him and assessed the loss without producing any bills whatsoever, the estimation to the tune of Rs.68,748/- for repairs of the insured vehicle and its approximate loss as against estimation costs of repairs by garage people at Gudur as per Ex.B6 and Ex.A3. There is a vast difference among the estimation of the costs of the repairs of the said tractor. What are the basis for assessing the loss and for arriving for a decision with regard to the costs to be incurred?
Documentary evidence:
Ex.A1 is the insurance policy issued in favour of the complainant by the 1st opposite party; Ex.A2 describes the position of the vehicle which was badly damaged as per S.I. of Police – Sullurpet P.S. dated 11-10-2012; Ex.A3 is the estimation of the expenses to be incurred for repairs of the vehicle by Sri Vigneswara International Tractors for Rs.4,09,200/- dated 19-10-2012; Ex.B1 is the legal notice dated 03-4-2013 which issued by the complainant to her advocate at Sullurpet to the opposite parties by requesting them to pay the insurance amount to her; Ex.B2 is the reply legal notice dated 12-04-2013 to the complainant’s advocate. These documents are explained the root cause for filing this Consumer Case.
We have bestowed our best of the consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. The Supreme Court of India and National Commission, New Delhi has been in the forefront in upholding the Consumer rights and protecting her from exploitation by trade and service provider including public bodies. We are convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. There is a lot of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Mental agony of the complainant cannot be measured in terms of money. There is no justification to delay the entire proceedings from the date of submission of claim application to the opposite parties by the complainant.
Having considered the present complaint in the light of above observations, we are of the considered opinion that ends of the justice would be meet if the complaint be partly allowed to the directions as here by mentioned in point no.3 hereunder. These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, accordingly.
POINT NO.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in-part ordering the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant for the insurance claim amount (I.D.V.) of Rs.3,95,626/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety five thousand six hundred and twenty six only) with interest @9% (nine)p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e., 19-07-2013 till the date of realization and credit the said amount to this loan account and also refund balance amount, if any to him; to pay him of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards damages for his mental agony, distress and financial loss and also payable to him of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, within one month from the date of receipt of the order from the Hon’ble Consumer Forum. The point is ordered accordingly.
Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 12th day of FEBRUARY, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT(FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
PW1 | 19-02-2015 | : | Yadala Sudhamma @ Yeddala Sudhamma, W/o.Gangaiah, Hindu, aged about years, R/o.1-35, China Ulspadava village, Sullurupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. |
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
RW1
RW2
RW3 | 28-09-2015
04-03-2015
20-01-2014
| :
:
: | T.Raveendra Reddy, S/o.T.Venugopal Reddy, Hindu, aged about 51 years and working as insurance surveyor and loss assessor and residing at Nellore.
Raju S Dhane, S/o.Shankar L Dhane, Hindu, aged about 40 years, and working as Senior and residing at Mumbai.
Maqbool Basha, S/o.Mohammed Khasim Miah Muslim aged 58 years, Chief Manager of the 2nd opposite party and residing at Sullurpet, Nellore District.
|
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 | 17-03-2012 | : | Photostat copy of insurance policy bearing no.0000000000226422 along with covering letter.
|
Ex.A2 | 11-10-2012 | : | Photostat copy of accident certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of police Sullurpet P.S.
|
Ex.A3 | 19-10-2012 | : | Photostat copy of estimation issued by Sri Vigneswara International Tractors, Gudur, Nellore dist.
|
Ex.A4 | 12-12-2012 | : | Photostat copy of consent letter.
|
Ex.A5
Ex.A6
Ex.A7
Ex.A8
Ex.A9
Ex.A10
Ex.A11 | 13-04-2013
17-04-2013
17-05-2013
15-06-2013
17-06-2013
08-02-2013
27-08-2014 | :
:
:
:
:
:
: | Photostat copy of letter addressed by the 1st opposite party.
Photostat copy of letter addressed by the 2nd opposite party.
Photostat copy of letter addressed to the opposite parties.
Photostat copy of letter addressed to the opposite parties.
Photostat copy of letter addressed to the opposite parties.
Photostat copy of statement of account issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Letter (To whom so ever it may concern)issued by the M/s.Sri Vigneswara International Tractors, Naidupet. |
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 AND 2:
Ex.B1 | 03-04-2013 | : | Copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
|
Ex.B2 | 12-04-2013
| : | Reply notice got issued by the 2nd opposite party bank.
|
Ex.B3 | 13-04-2013 | Postal acknowledgement.
| |
Ex.B4 | 07-01-2014 | : | Statement of account of the complainant with the 2nd opposite bank.
|
Ex.B5 | 17-03-2012 | : | Policy bearing No.00000000226422 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.
|
Ex.B6 | 09-11-2012 | : | Spot and final motor Survey report.
|
Ex.B7 | 28-02-2013 | Final reminder addressed to the complainant by the opposite party.
| |
Ex.B8 | 13-04-2013 | : | Final remainder addressed to the complainant by the opposite party.
|
Ex.B9 | - | : | Postal acknowledgement. |
|
|
Id/- PRESIDENT(FAC) |
Copies to:
- Sri S.V.V.S.S.Durga Prasad Rao, Advocate, H.No.27-2-956, A.C.Nagar, Nellore-2.
- Sri D.V.R.Kiran Kumar, Advocate, D.No.25-9-336, Z.P.Colony, A.K.NagarNellore.
- Sri K.Sesha Reddy, Advocate, D.No.27-1-1120, Lakshmi Nagar, Balaji Nagar, Nellore.
Date when order copies are issued:
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.