Date of filing:13.11.2013
Date of Disposal:27.6.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014.
C.C.No.176 OF 2013
Between :
Sri Lakshmi Transport Company, Rep., by its Managing Partner Ch.Janardhana Rao, R/o 31-288, Near Sai Baba Temple, Veera Machineni Complex, Vidya Nagar, Nandigama Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State.
….. Complainant.
And
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Rep., by the Branch Manager, Anjaneya Towers, M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 10, Krishna District.
…..Opposite Party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 16.6.2014 in the presence of Sri B.Devadas, Advocate for complainant and Sri T.Veerabhadra Rao,, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 16 TY 6896. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party for a period of one year commencing from 24.4.2011 to 23.4.2012. While so on 3.12.2011 the insured vehicle met with an accident and it was badly damaged. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite party and the opposite party appointed a surveyor. The surveyor conducted spot survey. After conducting survey the complainant made repairs to his damaged vehicle by spending an amount of Rs.2,85,194/- towards material and mechanical expenses and also incurred Rs.47,000/- towards labour charges. The complainant submitted claim form along with original bills and other necessary documents. But the opposite party did not settle the claim. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite party to settle the claim. The opposite party received the said notice and kept quiet which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,32,194/- along with interest from 3.12.2011 i.e., from the date of accident and to pay costs.
2. The version of the opposite party is in brief:
The opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant submitted the claim form stating that on 13.12.2011 the said vehicle hit ongoing vehicle as its driver applied sudden break. The opposite party registered the claim on 9.5.2012 and appointed surveyor and loss assessor and he conducted spot survey on 9.5.2012 and issued his report on 10.5.2012 with photographs and C.D. He inspected the garage of Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited, and assessed the damage payable to an extent of Rs.79,253/-. The complainant submitted invoice duplicate copy from Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited with job card dated 11.6.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,48,100/- but did not submit the cash bills or final bill amount issued by Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited. But surprisingly filed an expenditure bill for spare parts Rs.1,86,000/- and also Rs.52,450/- towards labour charges on the letter head of the complainant without furnishing the final bill to the opposite party. The bill submitted by the company on his own letter head is not valid and binding on this opposite party and the complainant failed to explain of the extra claim and the vehicle is repaired for an amount of Rs.1,48,100/-. The opposite party sent a letter to the complainant on 11.10.2012 and 14.11.2012 requesting to send cash bills but the complainant failed to produce bills to the opposite party more than 150 days. The liabilities of this opposite party is subject to the general exceptions deductibles, schedule of depreciation for arriving at insured declared value or fixing IDV as per the age of vehicle, premium computation made by the opposite party. The opposite party fixing based on insured declared value declaration by insured limitations as to use, clauses in respect of driver, persons or class of persons entitled to drive, schedule and schedule of premium, general regulations and IMT endorsements of IRDA Guide lines under the provisions of the Insurance At,1938 that including the limitations as to use of the policy, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the complainant must have to prove by way of an independent, cogent legal, oral and documentary evidence. The owner of the motor vehicle has committed willful breach and violation of terms and conditions of the policy and suppressed the material facts. The complainant is not entitled for Rs.3,32,192/- and the claim of the complainant is baseless excessive and arbitrate out of all proportions and the complainant is not entitled to claim interest from the date of accident, costs and other reliefs as prayed for against this opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 and on behalf of the opposite party Sri P.Venkata Siva Kumar, Legal Manager gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
towards the complainant in not accepting the claim of the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle under Ex.A.2 bearing Registered No.AP 16 TY 6896. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party under Ex.A.1 for a period of one year commencing from 24.4.2011 to 23.4.2012. While so on 3.12.2011 the insured vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite party and the opposite party appointed a surveyor. The surveyor conducted spot survey and submitted his report under Ex.B.4. After conducting survey the complainant made repairs to his damaged vehicle by spending an amount of Rs.2,85,194/- towards material and mechanical expenses and also incurred Rs.47,000/- towards labour charges. Ex.A.4 evidence the same. The complainant says that he submitted the claim form along with original bills and other necessary documents. But the opposite party did not settle the claim. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice under Ex.A.6 dated 30.10.2013 demanding the opposite party to settle the claim. The opposite party received the said notice under Ex.A.7 and kept quiet.
7. The opposite party says that the complainant submitted the claim form under Ex.B.3 stating that on 13.12.2011 the vehicle of the complainant hit an ongoing vehicle as its driver applied sudden break. The opposite party registered the claim on 9.4.2012 and appointed a surveyor to conduct spot survey on 9.5.2012 and the surveyor conducted spot survey and submitted his report under Ex.B.4 on 15.5.2012 with photographs and CD under Ex.B.2. He inspected garage Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited and assessed the loss payable to an extent of Rs.79,250/-. The complainant submitted invoice duplicate copy from Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited with job card dated 11.6.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,48,100/-. But he did not submit the cash bills and final bill amount issued by Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited. Later the complainant filed an expenditure bill for spare parts of Rs.1,86,000/- and labour charges Rs.52450/- on the letter head of the complainant without furnishing the final bill to the opposite party under Ex.B.7. The bills submitted by the company on his own letter head is not valid and binding on this opposite party and the complainant failed to explain the exact claim requiring for an amount of Rs.1,48,100/- under Ex.B.5. The opposite party sent a letter to the complainant on 11.10.2012 and 14.11.2012 requesting him to send cash bills but the complainant failed to produce bills to the opposite party for more than 150 days. The liability of the opposite party is subject to the general exceptions deductibles, schedule of depreciation for arriving at insured declared value or fixing IDV as per the age of vehicle, premium computation made by the opposite party. The opposite party fixing based on insured declared value declaration by insured limitations as to use, clauses in respect of driver, persons or class of persons entitled to drive, schedule and schedule of premium, general regulations and IMT endorsements of IRDA Guide lines under the provisions of the Insurance At,1938 that including the limitations as to use of the policy, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the complainant must have to prove by way of an independent, cogent legal, oral and documentary evidence. The owner of the motor vehicle has committed willful breach and violation of terms and conditions of the policy and suppressed the material facts. The complainant is not entitled for Rs.3,32,192/-as claimed by the complainant.
8. On perusing the material and documents we noted in Ex.B.8 the final survey report reported by the surveyor that summary of assessment and final assessment as per attached sheet. But no sheet was attached to it. The complainant filed a memo on 16.6.2014 stating that his vehicle which was insured with the opposite party was damaged in road accident and he spent an amount of Rs.3,32,194/- and repairs were made in his garage. The above said vehicle suffered damage to the body of the lorry, engine and gear box. Gear box repairs done by Automotives Vijayawada for an amount of Rs.1,63,500/-. But the opposite party paid an amount of Rs.92,209/- to the complainant for only gear box repairs. Engine repairs were done by Automotives, Vijayawada for an amount of Rs.2,89,500/- but the opposite party paid only Rs.1,76,346/-. The body repairs which was done by the own garage of Rs.3,32,194/- is still pending. The money which was paid by the opposite party to automotive is not in dispute. We came to conclusion that the opposite party has to pay the body damages parts assessment amount to the complainant. But there is no documentary evidence to show the actual damage of the body and assessment amount in the documents filed by both the parties. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the amounts which he spent for repairs of his vehicle on submission of the original bills to the opposite party.
POINT No.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to settle the claim of the complainant in respect of damaged body of the vehicle on receiving the original bills of parts used by the complainant’s garage for the vehicle, from the complainant within one month from the date of this order and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand rupees only) to the complainant. Rest of the claim of the complainant are rejected.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th day of June, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite party:-
P.W.1 Ch.Janardhana Rao D.W.1 Sri P.Venkata Siva Kumar,
Managing Partner of the company of the Complainant Legal Manager, of the opposite party
(by affidavit) (by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 . . Photocopy of Certificate cum policy schedule.
Ex.A.2 26.05.2011 Photocopy of certificate of registration.
Ex.A.3 30.05.2011 Photocopy of Authorization Certificate of N.P.(Goods).
Ex.A.4 17.10.2012 Photocopy of spare parts list.
Ex.A.5 . . Photocopy of Driving license.
Ex.A.6 30.10.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.7 . . Postal acknowledgement along with postal receipt.
For the opposite party:-
Ex.B.1 . . Photocopy of Certificate cum policy schedule.
Ex.B.2 . . C.D.
Ex.B.3 03.12.2011 Photocopy of Motor intimation letter.
Ex.B.4 26.12.2011 Photocopy of Motor (Spot) Survey Report.
Ex.B.5 14.08.2012 Bill of Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited,
Gudavalli Village, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District.
Ex.B.6 17.10.2012 Bill of Sri Lakshmi Transport Company, Jaggayyaapet,
Krishna District.
Ex.B.7 . . Claim details.
Ex.B.8 31.08.2012 Report of Surveyor loss assessor & valuer.
PRESIDENT
