BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Tueday the 28thday of August, 2007
C.C. No.36/2007
S. Buddan Saheb, S/o S.Shali Saheb,
Panchalingala Post, Kurnool. … COMPLAINANT
Verses
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited,
R.S.Road, Kurnool.
… OPPOSITE PARTY
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, kurnool for complainant, Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party and upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As Per Smt.C.Preethi, Member)
C.C.No.36/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed Under Section 11 and 12 of C.P.Act 1986, seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,279/- with 24% interest per annum, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony Rs.2,000/- as costs and grant any other relief or reliefs which the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA 04A2925, which was insured with opposite party vide policy No.611500/31/03/02000, On 2.7.2004 the above vehicle met with accident at Wadsa, Maharashtra State and case was registered under Cr.No.11/2004 by Desaigang Police and the said vehicle was badly damaged. Immediately the complainant informed the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party appointed a surveyor. Thereafter, the complainant submitted claim form with relevant documents, but the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on 4.3.2005 on the ground that as per the RC of the vehicle the Complainant is the owner from 23.3.2004 and the transfer of the policy took place on 2.7.2004 in favour of the complainant and as per police records the vehicle met with accident on 29/30.6.2004. But the Complainant denies all the allegations contended in the repudiation letter and alleges that the Opposite Party wantedly to avoid the claim repudiated it. Hence, the complainant resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) policy bearing No.611500/31/03/02000, (2) repudiation letter dated 4.3.2005 and (3) panchanama of scene of offence along with its English translation copy, besides to the sworn affidavit of the Complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite party and replied to the interrogatories of opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the Complainant the Opposite Party appeared through their standing counsel and filed written version
5. The written version of opposite party alleges that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. But submits that originally the accident vehicle bearing No.KA 04A2925 belongs to one Y. Ravindra Reddy and he insured his vehicle with Opposite Party for a period for 18.7.2003 to 17.7.2004. The said Ravindra Reddy sold the said vehicle to the Complainant on 23.3.2004 and the said transfer was affected in RC book on the same date. But the Complainant did not inform the transfer to Opposite Party to get the policy transfer in his name. The opposite party further submits that the complainant’s vehicle met with accident on 29/30.6.2004 and concealed the said material facts of the accident and obtained transfer endorsement policy in his name on 2.7.2004. It further submits that the claim form submitted by the complainant mentioned the date of accident as 3.7.2004 but as per the police records the accident occurred on 29/30.6.2004, the complainant mis represented the material facts to get wrong full gain from the opposite party. On the date of accident the policy stands in the name of Y. Ravindra Reddy, and no application was made by the complainant to transfer the said policy in his name within 14 days and the policy was not endorsed to cover the risk of the complainant. So when the policy interest was not transferred in the name of the complainant with in the stipulated period the complainant cannot claim damages on the said policy. Hence, the opposite party company is not at all liable to pay any damages to the complainant, as the complainant fraudly suppressed material information to get wrongful gain from the opposite party. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed awarding exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/-.
5. In substantiation of their case the opposite party relied on the following documents viz., (1) attested Xerox copy of policy No.611500 /31/03/01/ 02000, (2) claim form, (3) Xerox copy of registration certificate (4) Xerox copy of claim intimation letter dated 12.7.2004 (5) investigation report dated 9.2.2005 (6) spot survey dated 9.7.2004 (7) final survey report dated 5.9.2005, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of his written version avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B7 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and replied to the interrogatories of the complainant.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.?
7. It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No.K.A.04A 2925 and the said lorry is covered under the policy bearing No.611500/ 31/03/ 02000 vide Ex.A1 commenced from 10.30 A.M of 2.7.2004 to 17.7.2004, On 2/3.7.2004 the said vehicle met with accident and was badly damaged. On the claim preferred by the complainant vide Ex.B2 it was repudiated vide Ex.A2 stating that the original owner of the said vehicle sold it to the complainant on 23.3.2004 and the said transfer was endorsed in Ex.B3 Xerox copy of Registration Certificate but the complainant did not get the policy vide Ex.B1 transferred to his name on 23.3.2004. Meanwhile as per police records the said vehicle met with accident on 29/30.6.2004, the complainant concealing the said information got the said vehicle transferred into his name on 2.7.2004 and submitted claim form alleging accident occurred on 2/3.7.2004 but as per police records the accident occurred on 29/30.6.2004 and on that date the policy was not transferred to the complainant’s name. Hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and they repudiated the claim.
8. The main contention of the opposite parties is that the accident occurred on 29/30.6.2004 and on that date the policy was not transferred to the complainant’s name. The opposite party submitted that as per police records the accident occurred on 29/30.6.2004, but no police records are brought on record except the investigation report dated 9.2.2005 (Ex.B5) In the Ex.B5 the investigator submitted that as per police records and spot panchanama the accident occurred on 29/30.6.2004, but to substantiate the Ex.B5, neither police record and spot panchanama are placed on file nor the affidavit of the said investigator is filed. Hence, no credence can be given to the said Ex.B5.
9. On the other side the complainant submitted that the said accident occurred on 2/3.7.2004 and to substantiate the said contention the complainant brought on record the police panchanama vide Ex.A3, it envisages the accident to the vehicle bearing No.KA 04 A-2925 occurred on 2/3.7.2004 and in the claim form vide Ex.B2 the complainant submitted that his vehicle met with accident on 3.7.2004. The date of accident in police panchanama and claim form are one and the same, hence , it has to be believed that the accident to the vehicle bearing No.KA 04 A 2925 occurred on 2/3.7.2004 only. The policy in Ex.A1 commenced from 2.7.2004, therefore, the said claim of the complainant is covered under the policy issued to the complainant.
10. To conclude from the above discussed, the opposite party utterly failed to prove that the accident occurred on 29/30.6.2004 on the other side, it has been proved by the complainant that accident to his vehicle occurred on 2/3.7.2004 and covered under the policy issued by the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party can not escape their liability to pay the compensation for damages occurred to the complainant’s vehicle. The opposite party in their written version at para 3 submitted that as per terms and conditions it is liable to pay only Rs.56,000/- as assessed by final surveyor vide Ex.B7.
11. The complainant in this case claimed Rs.1,25,279/- but as per the Ex.B7 the surveyor assessed the loss after deducting depreciation to Rs.56,000/-. Hence, the complainant is entitled to the said amount only.
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.56,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filling of this complaint i.e.2.3.2007 along with costs of Rs.1,000/-within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall pay the supra award amount with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the open bench this day 28th August, 2007.
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. Policy No.611500/31/03/02000.
Ex.A2. Repudiation letter, dated 4.3.2005.
Ex.A3. Panchanama of scene of offence along with its English
Translation copy.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested copy of policy No.611500/31/03/01 / 0000 2000 -
( No.in three papers)
Ex.B2. Claim Form (No in two papers)
Ex.B3. Xerox copy of Registration Certificate.
Ex.B4. Xerox copy of claim intimation letter, dated 12.7.2004.
Ex.B5. Investigation Report, dated 9.2.2005.
Ex.B6. Spot Survey Report, dated 09.07.2004.(No in 3 papers)
Ex.B7. Final Survey Report, dated 05.09.2004 (No in 8 papers)
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
