STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 1029 of 2013
AGAINST
CC No. 16 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM, NALGONDA
Between :
The Regional Manager, HDFC ERGO
General Insurance Co. Ltd rep. by
Regional Claims Manager, 3rd floor, 3-6-180/2
Kachiguda House, Himayatnagar,
Hyderabad – 500 029 .. Appellant/opposite party
And
Burugu Srinivas, S/o Yellaiah, age : 47 years,
Occ : Business, R/o Peddavoora village and Mandal
Nalgonda District .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N. Srinath Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri V. Narasimha Rao
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh Day of December
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2013 made in CC 16 of 2013 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Nalgonda and allow the appeal.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he insured his Trolley Auto bearing No. AP-24Y -5836 with the opposite party Insurance company vide Ex.A-2 policy cover note No. 000002223159 valid for the period from 29.03.2010 to 28.03.2011. On 12.12.2010 at 3.00 am, when the said vehicle was returning back from Mallepally market after unloading paddy and at about 5.30 am, an unknown lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said vehicle and damaged it totally and also caused injury to pedestrians. Despite producing the driving licence of the driver, by name, Manasani Venkateshwarlu, the opposite party did not pay claim amount. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,04,728/- towards the damages caused to the vehicle in question and Rs.50,000/- towards accidental insurance under Ex.A2 policy and costs.
4) The opposite party though served with notice did not appear hence it was set exparte.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-7.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite party to deposit in the District Forum a sum of Rs.2,31,220/-towards damage caused to the vehicle and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service with interest @ 9% pa from 16.12.2011, the date of notice Ex.A-6 till realization and costs of Rs.2,000/- within one month.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute that the vehicle in question insured with the appellant/ opposite party vide Ex.A-2 policy and it met with an accident on 12.12.2010 on account of dashing against by negligent driving of an un-known lorry. Police registered Cr. No. 113 of 2010 PS Gudipally vide Ex.A-4 and submitted final report vide Ex.A5. There is also no dispute that the authorized dealer of Tata Motors estimated the loss at Rs.2,31,220/- and the claim submitted by the respondent/ complainant was repudiated on the ground that the respondent/complainant did not submit the driving licence of the driver.
11). Counsel for the appellant/opposite party argued that the District Forum relying on the statement given by the respondent/complainant in his chief affidavit that he had sent the driving licence of driver Mr. Venkateswarlu. Except the said statement there is no documentary evidence. He further argued that one V. Mogaliah was the driver and the insured company found the said driver had no valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore they repudiated the claim on 24.02.2011. Whereas, the appellant/complainant submitted that he furnished the driving licence of Manasani Venkateswarlu to the appellant Insurance Company. We have perused the final police report vide Ex. A5, wherein, the police mentioned LW-06, Manasani Venkateswarlu, as the driver of the Trolley at the time of accident. In view of the said final report, it can be established that Mansani Venkateswarlu was the driver at the time of accident but not V. Mogaliah and the respondent/complainant already furnished his driving license to the appellant Insurance company and repudiation of the insurance claim amounts to deficiency in service. It is not the case of the appellant Insurance Company that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Trolley in question the accident had occurred. In fact the accident took place due to negligent driving of the lorry that left no traces to find out. Basing on the technical point, the appellant insurance company cannot escape from its liability estimated above.
12). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ Insurance company and there are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
13). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 30.03.2013 in CC 16 of 2013 on the file of the District Forum, Nalgonda . There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 27. 12.2017.
