BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.431 OF 2005 AGAINST C.D.NO.533 OF 2002 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Kachiguda Branch, Srirang complex,
H.No.4-3-439, 2nd floor, Sultan Bazar,
Hyderabad. ...Appellant/
Opposite party
And
G.Venkanna, S/o.G.Ramulu
Aged 33 years, Occ:Business,
R/o.1-7-144, Golkonda ‘x’ Roads,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.S.Sravan Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.Lakshma Reddy
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order : (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.533/2002 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, an unemployee, to eke out his livelihood took a loan of Rs.48,800/- from A.P.State Co-operative Bank to purchased an auto and hypothecated the auto the bank. He purchased the said auto from “Chowdary Bros.” for a total consideration of Rs.65,967/- and got it registered with registration No.AP9W 644 and also insured the same with opposite party by paying premium amount of Rs.1,118/- towards comprehensive policy and the policy is valid for one year from 6-4-2000 to 5-4-2001. He submitted that he was paying the instalments to the bank from the income derived by plying the auto and when he fell ill, he gave his auto on rental basis to one Mr.K.Ravi. It is the complainant’s case that Mr.K.Ravi did not return the auto to him and went out of view and a Police complaint was given but the vehicle could not be traced. The A.P.State Co-operative Bank also addressed a letter to opposite party on 19-6-2001 handing over the duplicate key of the said auto but opposite party neither paid the claim amount nor repudiated the claim inspite of the complainant furnishing final report of police, fitness certificate, driving license etc. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.64,967/- towards insured amount of the vehicle with 18% interest from 21-12-2000 together with Rs.20,000/- towards damages and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
Notice was served to opposite party but they neither attended the Forum nor represented by a counsel, hence they were set exparte.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A10 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.64,967/- towards insured amount along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum erred in allowing the complaint and failed to observe Exs.A4, F.I.R., Ex.A7 and final report, Ex.A9, properly as it stated about missing man untraced and not of the vehicle. He submitted that the District Forum failed to observe the repudiation letter, Ex.A10, wherein it was stated that the competent authority has not admitted the vehicle claim on the basis of the facts submitted in the claim form and lack of details of the hirer in the proposal form and submitted that deficiency in service is not proved and prayed to allow the appeal.
We have perused the material on record. The facts not in dispute are that the respondent/complainant purchased a three wheeler auto from “Chowdary Bros.” for a total consideration of Rs.65,967/-. The said auto was registered with registration No.AP9W 644. The respondent/complainant got the also insured with opposite party by paying premium amount of Rs.1,118/- towards comprehensive policy and the policy is valid for one year from 6-4-2000 to 5-4-2001. The respondent/complainant submitted that he was plying the auto to eke out his livelihood and in the month of November, 2000, due to ill health, he gave his auto on rental basis to one Mr.K.Ravi, Auto driver, who ran the auto for one week and on 25-11-2000 he took the auto at about 8.00 A.M. and did not return the auto nor his where abouts were known. On 01-12-2000, the respondent gave a police complaint and a F.I.R. was registered. The final report filed before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate stated that the vehicle was not traceable.
It is the case of the appellant that the said report filed before the court only states about the missing man and not about the vehicle. We have gone through the final report filed before XVII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad on 25-4-2001. The facts of the case in that report clearly state that on 25-11-2000 the said K.Ravi has taken the auto and did not return the vehicle till date and on enquiry with the family members of the said K.Ravi, the police were informed that he did not return home. During the course of investigation, the parents of the missing man were examined and all efforts were made to trace the said K.Ravi but he was untraced and the proceedings were issued accordingly. The contention of the appellant that this final report does not state about the missing auto and therefore the repudiation is justified in unsustainable since the complaint itself was made on the basis of missing auto, which was taken by the said K.Ravi whose where abouts were not traced. It is observed from the record that in the F.I.R. it is clearly stated that the said K.Ravi, who had taken the auto on 25-11-2000 did not turn up till the date of filing of the F.I.R. and therefore a complaint was made. Therefore, the technical plea of the appellant that only the missing person was mentioned and not the auto cannot be sustained. The policy is not in dispute neither is the coverage and therefore the repudiation of the policy on the ground that the final report does not specify about the missing auto but only specifies about the missing man is not justified and we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT. MEMBER.
JM Dated 28-5-2008
