BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1058/2011 against C.C.No.181/2010 District Forum-II, Krishna at Vijayawada.
Between
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager,
570, Rectifier House, Nalgaum
Cross Road, Wadala (W),
Mumbai-400 031.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
D.No.36-4-1, 5th floor, Veeramachaneni
Prakashrao complex, Jammichettu Center,
Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada. …Appellants/
opposite parties
And
Lakshmishetty Bujji S/o.Sree Ramulu
Business, 6/4, Nehrunagar, Guntur-1. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.Ramachandra Reddy Gadi
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Posani Subba Rao.
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE Incharge President
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL,
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Incharge President)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.181/2010 on the file of District Forum-II, Krishna at Vijayawada, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Chevorolet Optra Mangam vehicle bearing No.AP07 AS 2222 and insured the same with opposite parties for a sum of Rs.8,62,332/- under policy No.1803792311003405 and cover note No.10900078889 for the period from 03-10-2009 to 02-10-2010. While so, on 27-11-2009 the vehicle met with an accident and was fully damaged and the same was reported to Beemadolu P.S and a case was registered U/s.184 (b)/177 of M.V. act. The complainant intimated the accident to the opposite parties through toll free number and on the advice of 2nd opposite party photographs were taken and the vehicle was shifted to Orange Auto Pvt. Ltd., which is the authorized service centre of Chevrolet company. The complainant submitted that thereafter he was informed by the opposite parties that they appointed a surveyor by name, Mr.V.Srinivasa Rao, Rajahmundry and he submitted a report to the opposite parties. The complainant submitted that Orange Auto Pvt. Ltd., gave an estimated bill of Rs.8,87,581-26 roof ceiling is to be added and vat tax is increased @ 14.5% from 12.5% and the expenditure comes to more than 75% of IDV of the vehicle and therefore the complainant is entitled for the total insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.8,62,332/-. The complainant submitted that he contacted 2nd opposite party personally and on phone several times requesting to make IDV by receiving the damaged vehicle but opposite parties did not settle the matter. The complainant submitted that he is a business man and the vehicle is essential to him and he is spending Rs.10,000/- every month for rented car and further Orange Auto Pvt. Ltd., is charging Rs.250/- per day for parking charges and therefore the opposite parties are liable to pay the parking charges and interest on the IDV for the pending period. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 01-5-2010 to the opposite parties requesting to settle the matter and make payment of IDV and other expenses but the opposite parties did not choose to reply. The complainant submitted that surprisingly he received a letter as if it was a final reminder dated 07-6-2010 without any reference to the notice issued by the complainant to which the complainant gave reply on 26-6-2010 but there was no response. The complainant submitted that he got appointed Sri A.Chandra Sekhar, insurance surveyor to investigate and submit a report and the report clearly showed that the complainant is entitled for claim on total loss basis. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.11,79,499/- towards the IDV value of the vehicle, interest, rent, compensation etc.,
Opposite party No.1 filed version which was adopted by opposite party No.2 resisting the complaint. They alleged that the accident is false and there is no iota of evidence of the alleged accident and there is no FIR, panchanama, rough sketch, crime scene observation report in respect of the alleged accident. Opposite parties submitted that if really the accident took place certainly the driver would sustain injuries and that there was no wound certificate or driver or inmates from Government hospital and why the accident was not registered under Medico legal case. They further submitted that the certificate issued by ‘traffic police, Hyderabad’ dated 28-11-2009 is created for wrongful claim and that the Sub Inspector of Police neither verified nor inspected the vehicle, driving license etc. to prove the nexus between the alleged accident and damages and therefore the certificate dated 28-11-2009 is not admissible under law. Opposite parties further contend that the Motor spot survey reported issued by Mr.A.Chandrasekhar Rao clearly establishes the collusion of the alleged surveyor and that the opposite parties were not given opportunity to inspect the damage of the vehicle of the alleged accident and the complainant conducted the survey without the knowledge of opposite parties and therefore the alleged spot survey report is false. They further submitted that the complainant is not a consumer and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the Tariff Advisory Committee laid down rules, regulations, rates, advantages, terms and conditions for transaction of Motor Insurance Business in India in accordance with the provisions of part II B of Insurance Act and they are bound by those rules and the total loss was defined in General Regulations No.8 of Indian Motor Tariff and that the IDV of the vehicle will be deemed to be the sum insured for the purpose of this tariff and it will be fixed at the commencement of each policy period for each insured vehicle and that IDV of the vehicle is to be fixed on the basis of manufacturer’s listed selling price of the brand and model for insurance at the commencement of proposal for insurance and adjusted for depreciation as per schedule. The survey report filed by the complainant is false and the vehicle does not come under total loss as the complainant did not repair the vehicle and did not file the repair bills and submitted that there was no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A12 and B1 and B2 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.8,62,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant insured his Chevorolet Optra Mangam car with the opposite parties for the period 03-10-2009 to 02-10-2010. While so, it is the complainant’s case that the car met with an accident on 27-11-2009 and the same was intimated to the opposite parties and on their direction, the vehicle was brought to Orange Auto Private Limited, who estimated the loss at Rs.8,87,581.26 ps. and as the repair charges exceeded 75% of the IDV, the complainant claimed damages on total loss basis.
It is the appellant/opposite party’s case that the complainant’s case was repudiated as there was no evidence that the accident took place and there is no FIR, panchanama or crime scene observation report. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the driver did not sustain any injuries and there is no wound certificate of the driver or the inmates. As against this the complainant rely on Ex.A4 which is the traffic police fine receipt issued on 28-11-2009 for an amount of Rs.200/- stating that the vehicle on 27-11-2009 while coming from Guntur to Rajahmundry tried to avoid some cattle and turned turtle damaging the car. The learned counsel for the appellant this Ex.A4 has been issued on 28-11-2009 whereas the incident took place on 27-11-2009. The respondent/complainant submit that a surveyor by name Mr.V.Srinivasa Rao was appointed by the opposite parties but he did not submit his report and thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 01-5-2010 evidenced under Ex.A6 and another legal notice on 26-6-2010 evidenced under Ex.A11. The complainant relies on the survey report of one Mr.A.Chandrasekhar Rao, who is a licensed insured surveyor but appointed by the complainant to assess the loss. This survey report is marked as Ex.A7 dated 05-7-2010. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that this survey report cannot be relied upon as the surveyor was appointed by the complainant himself, but we observe from the record that though the issuance of the policy is not in dispute, the opposite parties did not choose to file the spot assessment done by Mr.V.Srinivasa Rao. It is pertinent to note that the surveyor, V.Chandra Sekhar appointed by the complainant has filed his chief affidavit in the District Forum and it was open to the opposite parties to examine him but they did not take any steps to do so. While the issuance of the policy is not in dispute and when the complainant has issued a legal notice mentioning that the opposite parties had appointed a surveyor by name Mr.V.Srinivasa Rao, the opposite parties did not choose to deny this by giving a suitable reply. The complainant admits to receiving a letter dated 07-6-2010 from the opposite parties seeking for some documents like repair bills and driving license but they did not refer to the legal notices got issued by the complainant. To reiterate, the opposite parties did not file the spot survey report of Mr.V.Srinivasa Rao neither did they reply to the legal notices denying any such assessment nor did they choose to take steps to examine the licensed insurance surveyor appointed by the complainant who filed his affidavit by way of evidence. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the District Forum did not deduct depreciation from the IDV. We observe from Ex.B2 internal page 2 which is the copy of the Private car Package Policy that the depreciation for fixing IDV of the vehicle is 5% for not exceeding 6 months and so on… In the instant case Ex.B1 policy was issued from 03-10-2009 to 02-10-2010 for an IDV of Rs.8,62,332 and the accident took place on 27-11-2009 within two months from the date of issuance of the policy and therefore a depreciation of 5% needs to be deducted as per the terms and conditions of the policy even if it is considered on total loss basis, the period is not ‘exceeding six months’. While we hold that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party in repudiating the claim, at the same time we are of the considered view that a deprecation of 5% needs to be deducted from the IDV which is 5% of Rs.862332 – Rs.43,116.60 = Rs.8,19,215.40 while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the District Forum and deducting depreciation at 5% i.e. Rs.43,116.60 ps from Rs.8,62,332 and award Rs.8,19,215.40/- while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT.
MEMBER.
JM Dt.15-4-2013.
