BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH, TIRUPATI OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.969/2007 against C.C.No.63/2006, Dist. Forum,Kadapa.
Between:
The Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rosy Towers, IInd Floor, No.7,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai. ….Appellant/
Opp.party no.1
And
1.B.Bala Guruva Reddy,
S/o.B.P.Gurivi Reddy,
Aged 58 years, Hindu,
Transport Business,
R/o.D.No.3/611-1,Krishnapuram III Road,
Thadipatri Town, Anantapur Distt. … Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Manager , City Corporation Finance
India Ltd., Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
3.The Manager,
Shriram Investments Company Ltd.,
Ground Floor, TCR towers, Kamalanagar,
Anantapur. …Respondents/
Opp.parties 2 & 3
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Bhaskar Poluri
Counsel for the Respondents : R1-served.
M/s. M.V.Kini-R2
M/s. K.Maheswara Rao-R3.
CORAM:HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M.SHREEHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order: (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.63/2006 on the file of District Forum , Kadapa, the opposite party no.1 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a lorry bearing no.KA-34-C-4788 from TATA Motors Limited and insured his vehicle to the 1st opposite party for Rs.10,50,000/- for the period from 9.3.2004 upto 8.3.2005. The complainant again insured his vehicle for Rs.8,80,000/- and paid a one time payment of Rs.24.743/- for a period from 9.3.2005 to 8.3.2006 . On 11.3.2005 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident near Muddanur-Tadipatri road near Muddanur, Kadapa when the vehicle was going from Bellary to Chennai with a load of iron ore. On account of sudden cut of U-Clamp and loss of control, the vehicle fell down on the side of the road and it was completely damaged by bending of chassis and the police levied a fine of Rs.500/- on the driver and the road accident was informed to the opposite parties. The spot surveyor by name “Prasanth’ was deputed and he sent his report on 24.3.2005. The complainant submits that he got estimation from TATA Motors Authorized Dealer by name Meru Auto Mobiles Ltd., Kurnool and the total claim is for Rs.10,42,511/-. More than one year lapsed and the complainant did not receive any information from the opposite party and stated that the claim is neither settled nor repudiated. He also got issued a legal notice on 12.4.2006 demanding settlement but the opp.parties did not reply. Hence the complaint to direct the opp.party no.1 to pay the insured amount of Rs.8,80,000/- with interest @ 18% together with compensation and costs.
Opposite party no.1 filed counter stating that the complainant insured his vehicle for commercial purpose and as such the insured does not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per Sec.2 of Consumer Protection Act,1986. The opposite party submitted that no FIR was filed and that the complainant did not file any bills or invoices to the extent of Rs.8,80,000/- and that the Xerox copy of the claim form does not disclose the extent of damage of the lorry and therefore the opposite parties denied that there was any deficiency of service on their behalf.
The opposite party no.2 filed counter stating that they are a formal party and the complainant did not seek any direction against it.
The opposite party no.3 filed counter stating that they are also a formal party and that the complainant did not seek any direction against it.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A6 and B1 to B5 allowed the complaint directing opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the complainant, Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs totalling to Rs.5,54,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of the order , failing which the complainant is entitled for interest at 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from 11.3.2005 till the date of realization. The case against opposite parties 2 and 3 is dismissed without costs.
Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party no.1 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant had insured his vehicle bearing no.KA-34-C-4788 on 9.3.2004 from TATA Motors Limited by paying a premium amount of Rs.24,743/- for Rs.8,80,000/- and the policy is valid from 9.3.2005 to 8.3.2006. It is the case of the complainant that the insured vehicle met with an accident near Muddanur - Tadipatri Road, near Muddanur, Kadapa. The complainant made a claim to the opposite parties and the spot surveyor was deputed to the accident spot and he submitted his report to opposite party no.1 on 24.3.2005. It is the complainant’s case that the repairs estimate from TATA Motors is Rs.10,42,511/- and contend that they submitted all the relevant documents before opposite party no.1, but there was no reply to the legal notice(Ex.A5) and the opposite party received the notice but still did not reply. It is the case of opposite parties that the authorised surveyor had assessed the damage for Rs.2,23,500/- and issued a reply letter to the complainant on 9.5.2005 to produce the documents, but that the complainant did not file any such documents . Ex.B3 is the QUI – Prom Surveyor report of opposite party no.1. It is also not in dispute that the Circle Inspector of Police charged fine of Rs.500/- for the road accident. The District Forum opined that in the light of this penalty , filing of FIR cannot be insisted upon.
We observe from the record that the opposite party neither settled nor repudiated the claim for more than a year, inspite of the fact that the complainant got issued a legal notice (Ex.A5) dated 12.4.2006 requesting for early settlement but the opposite party neither replied to the legal notice nor settled the claim or repudiated it. It is pertinent to note that the survey report filed before the District Forum was not furnished to the complainant thereby not giving him an opportunity to go through it and communicate correspondence with the opposite party.
The complainant filed an application to receive the Estimate issued by MERU AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD., TATA MOTORS in which the estimate for repairs is given as Rs.8,54,711/- and the labour estimation is given as Rs.1,87,800/-. Taking into consideration that the vehicles repairable expenses is more than the insured amount itself, we are of the considered view that the amount awarded by the District Forum which is much less, almost 50% of the estimation made by the authorized dealer of Tata Motors i.e. (Ex.A7) is justified. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and that for the damage caused to the vehicle is one where the repairable expenses are more than the insured amount, we are of the considered view that the District Forum has rightly awarded the amount. However the default interest clause is being set aside.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order of the District Forum with regard to default interest clause is set aside. In all other aspects order of the District Forum is confirmed. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt. 28.8.2009
