BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.477/2007 against CD.No.104/2004 District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
9th Floor, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager.
…Appellant/Opp.Party.
And
Gajula Franklin, S/o.Asheervadam,
R/o.1-2-34/5/D,
Christian Colony,
Near Indian Mission High School,
Pragatinagar,
Peddapally Proper.
…Respondent/Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. D.R.Kulkarni.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Jus tice D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party Insurance Company against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar, directing it to pay Rs.70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum and costs of Rs.500/-.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that his Ambassador car which he was using and was also hiring to Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Bellampally for an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, met with an accident on 12.09.2002 while he was proceeding to Nizamabad from Bellampally. In fact the car was insured with the appellant, covering the period from 29.08.2002 to 28.08.2003. On report, the policy registered a case in Crime No.157/2002 under Sec.279 IPC. The car was heavily damaged. He got it repaired by incurring an amount of Rs.51,233/-. In fact he lost income of Rs.10,000/- per month. When he sent the claim, the same was not settled. Therefore, he got issued a legal notice followed by complaint claiming the above said amounts.
3. The Insurance Company resisted the case. While admitting the issuance of policy, it alleged that the claim was highly exaggerated. On receipt of information it had appointed a surveyor, who in turn visited the spot, assessed the damages at Rs.8,840/-. It had also sent a cheque for the said sum through a letter dated 06.11.2002. However, the complainant refused to receive the same. The complainant was not entitled to any of the amounts claimed and that too without any basis and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.12, while the opposite party filed affidavits in evidence, however, did not get the documents marked though filed.
5. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant’s vehicle had sustained damage and got it repaired at Rs.51,233/-, however awarded Rs.70,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment and costs of Rs.500/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in its correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the report of the surveyor was not considered. In fact the bills that were filed by the complainant viz. Exs.A.6 to A.10 would come to Rs.27,583/- and therefore, awarding of compensation at Rs.70,000/- was on higher side and that too without any basis and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciated of facts?
8. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company filed Exs.B.1, B.2 and B.3 viz. surveyor’s reports and policy along with conditions, which ought to have been filed before the District Forum, as additional evidence. The said application is allowed and the documents are assigned exhibit Nos.B.1 to B.3.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant owned an Ambassador car insured with the appellant covering the period from 29.08.2002 to 28.08.2003. It is also not in dispute that on 12.09.2002 the car met with an accident. On a report, the police registered a case in Crime No.157/2002 under Sec.279 IPC evidenced under Ex.A.1. When the car met with an accident, certain parts were damaged and a panchanama was conducted, evidenced under Ex.A.2. The complainant filed Exs.A.6 to A.10, the bills to show that he got it repaired in a private garage by spending an amount of Rs.27,583/-. The complainant for the reasons best known did not file any documents with respect to the amounts spent towards mechanical charges, labour charges, etc. in order to award just compensation. When exfacie Exs.A.6 to A.10 show that an amount of Rs.27,583/- was spent, undoubtedly the same could be granted besides mechanical charges plus a reasonable compensation in all Rs.37,000/- which we feel reasonable. However, there is no justification for awarding Rs.70,000/- without any proof.
10. The complainant except filing Ex.A.3, the proceedings of Singareni Collieries inviting him to attend negotiations fixing hiring charges with tender committee, no other document was filed. There is evidence that his car was hired to Singareni Collieries at Rs.10,000/- per month. It is not known whether the complainant could ply the car or not and the amount of loss sustained by him on that score. No compensation could be awarded on imaginary grounds. The surveyor no doubt visited the spot on receipt of information about the accident, however estimated the loss at Rs.8,840/-. We may state that he did not visit the garage where the complainant had got his car repaired nor verified Exs.A.6 to A.10. He did not even issue notice to the complainant. Therefore, we are unable to accept the report of the surveyor.
11. Considering this evidence, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards damage caused to the car. The complainant is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of repudiation ie. 6.11.2002 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs.2,000/.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly as indicated above modifying the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Dt:06.07.2010.
Vvr.
