BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL

Present:       Sri D.Chiranjeevi Babu

                                                President.

                                               Sri N.J.Mohan Rao,

                                               Member.

                                      AND

                                                Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

          Friday, the 02^nd May, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 43/2007

Between:

G.Madhava Reddy,

S/o.Narayan Reddy,

Age:51 yrs., Occu.:Business,

R/o.Advocates Colony,

Balasamudram,

Hanamkonda.

           …              Complainant

AND

1.  The I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General

      Insurance Company Limited,

      Rep.by its General Manager,

      Office at Osman Plaza, D.No.6-3-352/1,

      3^rd & 4^th Floor, Road No.1,

      Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034.

2.   The I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General

      Insurance Company Limited,

      Rep.,by its Branch Manager,

      Office at 2^nd Floor, Vaddiraju Complex,

      Green Square Plaza, Opp.: Public Garden,

      Hanamkonda, Warangal District.                       …       Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant               : Sri.  P.Muralidhar, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties                   :  Sri T. Ravinder Rao, Advocate

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order

                                          ::  ORDER  ::

     Sri N.J.Mohan Rao, Sr.Member

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant G.Madhava Reddy, against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.46,895/- for the damage to the vehicle and also Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony for the deficiency of service and also award costs of the complaint. 

The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

01.     The complainant has purchased New TATA INDIGO Car LX BS-III from Warangal Show Room on 26^th January, 2006 and it was hypothecated to TATA MOTORS Ltd., Hyderabad. The opposite parties’ representatives was insured with the Chassis No.607154ATZP12874 and Engine No.475IDT14ATZP05017, as such the complainant insured his vehicle with the opposite party No.2 on 25-01-2006.  The opposite parties have collected amount of Rs.19,244/- and issued cover note on 25-01-2006.  Unfortunately the complainant’s vehicle hit the road divider on 22-11-2006, it was informed to the opposite parties and opposite party No.2 Surveyor came to the spot and noted down the damage caused to the vehicle and he also took the photographs.  In fact, the vehicle has been damaged to the tune of Rs.60,000/- whereas the Surveyor has restricted the claim and assessed to the tune of Rs.46,895/-.  To that effect a cash memo from M.M.Motors were the parts have been purchased have been submitted and also M.D.Shakil Automobile Workshop Labour Charges bill was also submitted.   The vehicle is insured originally when it was purchased with the Chassis Number and Engine Number, as such the Policy was issued as Private Package Policy.  Subsequently when the vehicle is registered under Yellow Plate.  The complainant has informed to the opposite parties, they did not respond and no acknowledgement is given for the letter addressed to them. The complainant waited for a long time, but unfortunately the complainant received a letter on 09^th December, 2006 rejecting the claim.  The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 19-12-2006, both the opposite parties have received the legal notice and acknowledged the same, for the legal notice also no reply has been given so far.  The complainant has no other way except approaching the Hon’ble Forum for claimingRs.46,895/- as well as Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony

02.     The Tata Indigo LX BS-III Car of the complainant was insured by this Opposite party with the Chassis and Engine Number commencing from 25-01-2006 to 4-01-2007 under Private Car Package Policy.  Complainant’s vehicle hit the road divider on 22-11-206 and vehicle said to have damaged to the tune of rs.60,000/- but the Surveyor assessed the damage to the tune of Rs.46,895/-.  The opposite party informed the complainant by repudiating the claim through letter dtd.:09-12-2006 informing the reason of repudiation that “the vehicle registered for commercial usage whereas the policy is booked in private package policy”.  It is clearly mentioned in the certificate of policy (Ex.B-1) that “limitation as to use” the policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than hire or reward, carriage of goods.   The averment of the complainant that the complainant informed in respect of using of vehicle for commercial purpose on 11-12-2006 and it was acknowledged by this O.P. is also false and incorrect. 

The O.P. is relying on the following judgment:-

2003 (3)CPR 85 (NC) in Anil Kumar V/s. The New India Insurance Company Limited held.: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 12 & 17 – Bus insured for Rs.5.5. lacs met with an accident in Kathmandu (Nepal) – Claim repudiated – State Commission allowed complaint directing insurance Co., to pay insured amount of Rs.5.5. lacs with interest at 18% p.a. – Appeal both by complainant & Insurance Co. – Policy as per terms and conditions was valid for vehicle use in the geographical territory of India – Certain letters informing insurer by insured of a possible use of bus in Kathmandu would not be deemed to extend the territory to include Nepal – Impugned order was liable to be set-aside.

          The Opposite parties prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss this complaint against this opposite parties with exemplary costs.

          The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.A-01 to A-10.  On behalf of opposite parties S.Nagesh filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Ex.B-1

Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled for grant of Rs.46,895/- in the damages to the vehicle and also Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony for deficiency of service and the award cost of the complaint.  

03.     After the arguments of the both side counsels our reasons are like this.  The case of the complainant is that, he purchased New TATA INDIGO Car LX BS-III from Warangal Show Room on 26^th January, 2006 and it was hypothecated to TATA MOTORS Ltd., Hyderabad.  After purchasing the said vehicle the representatives of the Opposite Parties approached him and requested him to insure the vehicle with them. As such the vehicle was insured with the Chassis No.607154ATZP12874 and Engine No.475IDT14ATZP05017 on 25-01-2006.  The opposite parties have collected Rs.19,244/- and issued cover note on 25-01-2006.  Thereafter his vehicle hit the road divider on 22-11-2006.  Immediately he informed the same to the Opposite Parties and the Surveyor of the Opposite Parties came to the spot noted down the damage caused to the vehicle and took photographs.  Thereafter nearly the damages of Rs.60,000/- but the Surveyor restricted the claim and assessed the damages caused his vehicle of Rs.46,895/- labour charges bill also submitted.  To that effect a cash memo from M.M. Motors where the parts have been purchased and submitted and also MD.Shakil Automobile Workshop Labour Charges Bill was also submitted.  The complainant’s further case is that the vehicle was insured from just purchase the Opposite Parties insured the vehicle with the Chassis and Engine Number under private package policy.  Subsequently the vehicle was registered on yellow plate.  He also informed the same to the opposite parties but did not respond and no acknowledgement as given to him he waited for a long time expecting the amount will be paid to him, but he received a  letter from Opposite Party on  09-12-2006 rejecting his claim on the ground that the vehicle was insured under private package policy.  Thereafter he submitted a letter on 11-12-2006 to the opposite parties that the vehicle has been changed to TAXI Plate, which was acknowledged by the opposite parties and did not give any sort of reply or change of the policy.  Then he filed his case for grant of amount of Rs.46,895/- for the damage of the vehicle and also Rs.50,000/- damages towards mental agony with costs. 

04.     The case of the opposite parties are that they denied  all the allegations of the complainant and further they denied that the complainant sustained damage of Rs.46,895/- and further denied that the Surveyor assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.46,895/-.  Further they stated that the complainant he himself approached them and taken a policy from them only but not the opposite party visited the complainant and taken policy. 

05.     After gone through the complainant allegations and the Opposite parties allegations we come to conclusion that the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.46,895/-  because as per Ex.A-1 the Xerox copy of cover note, it shows that for an amount of Rs.19,244/- the complainant taken policy for his car under a private car and further Ex.A-2 it is the Xerox copy of the Registration of the Car.  Ex.A-3 Rejection of Claim i.e. letter sent by ICICI Lombard.  Ex.A-5 Xerox copy of the letter issued by complainant i.e. legal notice dated 19-12-2006, this letter shows that has taken policy in January, 2006 as private car now he changed the vehicle into taxi plate so therefore he requested them to change the policy bearing No.1361728. Exs.A-6 & A-7 they are the acknowledgements. Ex.A-8,9 & 10  are Xerox copies of car receipts.  Those receipts show that the complainant’s spent amount for the vehicle.  In this case it is true that vehicle was damaged due to hit by the complainant to a divider, after the hit he informed to the opposite parties then the opposite parties sent a Surveyor to the spot and the said Surveyor estimated cost of the damages.  The opposite party simply denied that they have not sent the Surveyor to the accident spot and further the complainant is also not filed any document to show that the Surveyor of the opposite parties came and estimated the damages of the car but it is clear that on the basis of evidence of the complainant that the Surveyor of the opposite party came and estimate the car with regard to the damages and further the counsel for the opposite parties argued that the opposite parties liable to the cost of the complaint because at the time of registration it is a private car.  Subsequently the complainant changed the yellow plate for this our answer is that the opposite parties since already Ex.A-4 is there.  This letter shows that the complainant has taken the policy for his car Indigo-LX in January, 2005 as private car, now he changed his vehicle into TAXI plate and he requested them to change his policy bearing No.PC1361728 so as per the Ex.A-4 it is clear that the complainant has sent the same letter and requesting them to change the policy the arguments of the opposite parties on previously it is a private car and now it is a yellow plate car and insurance is not liable to pay the damages for the accident vehicle is baseless argument.  Further as per Ex.A-5 it is clear cut that the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties immediately after the accident so after the accident certainly the opposite parties might have been sent a Surveyor to the accident spot mere denying the same is not useful for them.  So on the basis of A-4 and A-5 it is clear cut that the complainant registered the car and taken policy from the opposite party when the car met with an accident certainly the opposite parties liable to  pay  the  damages  of  the  car  to the complainant.  Further Ex.A-8 to A-10 which are the bills issued by M.M.Motors and other clearly because to show that the complainant repaired the accident car.  Ex.A-1 and Ex.B-1 both of them clearly show that the accident vehicle is insured with the opposite parties.  The arguments of the opposite parties counsel and he cited a judgment in 2003 (3)CPR 85 (NC) in Anil Kumar V/s. The New India Insurance Company Limited held.:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 12 & 17 – Bus insured for Rs.5.5. lacs met with an accident in Kathmandu (Nepal) – Claim repudiated – State Commission allowed complaint directing insurance Co., to pay insured amount of Rs.5.5. lacs with interest at 18% p.a. – Appeal both by complainant & Insurance Co. – Policy as per terms and conditions was valid for vehicle use in the geographical territory of India – Certain letters informing insurer by insured of a possible use of bus in Kathmandu would not be deemed to extend the territory to include Nepal – Impugned order was liable to be set-aside.

06.     He argued elaborately with regard to that this case as per above cited judgment the opposite parties are not liable to pay the damages to the   complainant but for this our answer is that the above cited judgment is not applicable for this case because the accident took place in Nephal but in our present case the policy is in India i.e. A.P. in I.C.I.C.I Lombard and it is in Hanamkonda Area.  So accident took place in geographical territorial jurisdiction only, so the above cited judgment is not applicable for this judgment and further when the complainant he himself taken policy from opposite party and the policy is in force certainly the opposite parties liable to pay the same.  In this case the complainant estimated the damages cost of Rs.60,000/- but as per the Surveyor assessed damages to the tune of Rs.46,895/-.  So certainly the opposite parties are liable to pay the same above amount.  Hence our answer accordingly in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties.

TO WHAT RELIEF:-

          The above point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.

          In the result this complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.46,895/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Five Only) and costs of Rs.1,000/- with regard to the damages we do not award  any damages for mental agony.

  02^nd  May, 2008).

                                                           Sd/-                 Sd/-              Sd/-

                                                      Member           Member          President,

                                                        District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT                          ON BEHALF OF OPs.

Affidavit of Complainant filed                         Affidavit on behalf of OPs. filed.

ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT EXHIBITS MARKED

     Rs.19,244/-.

2. Ex.A-2 is the Xerox copy of Andhra Pradesh Transport Department  

     Certificate of Registration.

3. Ex.A-3 is the Xerox copy of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Rejection of Claim, dated 09-12-2006.
4. Ex.A-4 is the Xerox copy letter to ICICI Lombard, Warangal.
5. Ex.A-5 is the Office copy of Legal Notice dated 19-12-2006.
6. Ex.A-6 & A-7 are acknowledgement cards.
7. Ex.A-8,9 & 10  Xerox copies of Bills.

ON BEHALF OF Opposite parties

Ex.B-1 is the ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Certificate Cum Policy   Schedule Certificate Cum Policy No.3001/1341525/00/000.

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                       PRESIDENT.