BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1606/2006 against C.C. 36/2006, Dist. Forum, Vijayawada.
Between:
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager,
Corporate Claims Dept.
46, Whites Road, Chennai-14. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1). Manukonda Lakshmi Narasamma
W/o. Koti Reddy,
D.No. 32-60-1, Near Old Bus-stand
Nandigama, Krishna Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2). The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager
1st Floor, Sudarshan Complex
M.G. Road, Labbipet,
Vijaywada, Krishna Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Katta Laxmi Prasad
Counsel for the Resp(s): Mr. G. Narasimha Rao (R1)
M/s. Kota Subba Rao (R2)
F.A. 371/2007 against C.C. 36/2006, Dist. Forum, Vijayawada.
Between:
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager
1st Floor, Sudarshan Complex
M.G. Road, Labbipet,
Vijaywada, Krishna Dist. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 2.
And
1). Manukonda Lakshmi Narasamma
W/o. Koti Reddy,
D.No. 32-60-1, Near Old Bus-stand
Nandigama, Krishna Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
2) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager,
Corporate Claims Dept.
46, Whites Road, Chennai-14. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 1
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Kota Subba Rao
Counsel for the Resp(s): Mr. G. Narasimha Rao (R1)
M/s. Katta Laxmi Prasad (R2)
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
&
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) These appeals are preferred by the opposite parties 1 & 2 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., and the New India Assurance Company Ltd., respectively against the order of the Dist. Forum in directing both of them to pay jointly and severally the amount covered under the policy.
2) The parties are described as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression.
3) The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the owner of lorry bearing No. AP 16 TU 2704 insured with R1 Roysal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., valid from 29.8.2003, 00.00 hours to midnight of 28.8.2004 and another policy with R2 New India Assurance Company Ltd., from 29.08.2004, 00.00 hours to midnight of 28.8.2005. While so on the intervening night of 28/29.8.2004 at about 12.00 in the midnight the vehicle met with accident at Barcohi of Gujarat State. Immediately the driver of the lorry lodged a report to the police basing on which a crime No. 74/2004 was registered u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. Immediately the said fact was informed to the insurance companies which had appointed surveyors who assessed the damage sustained to the lorry. Later she got the lorry repaired in the garage of Sri Durga Mechanical Works, Vijayawada by spending an amount of Rs. 2,78,730/-. She sustained loss of income of Rs. 30,000/- during that period. When she claimed the amount R1 repudiated the claim on the ground that the period of the policy was expired, while R2 repudiated on the ground that the period of the policy was not commenced. Both of them in fact had to pay the amount spent by her. Therefore she claimed Rs. 2,78,730/- with interest @ 12% p.a., besides compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
4) R1 the appellant in F.A. 1606/2006 resisted the case. While putting the complainant to strict proof of each and every fact alleged in the complaint admitted that the policy issued by it, cover the period from 00.00 hours of 29.8.2003 to midnight of 28.8.2004. The alleged accident took place at 12.00 midnight of 28.8.2004. therefore, the policy was expired. It was not liable to pay any compensation, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5) R2 the appellant in F.A. 371/2007 equally resisted the case. It alleged that it had issued the policy valid from 00.00 hours of 29.08.2004 to mid night of 28.08.2005. Since the accident took place before 12.00 midnight of 28.8.2004 and the insurance policy covers from 0.00 hours of 29.8.2004 to mid night of 28.8.2005 the lorry was not insured and therefore it was not liable to pay any compensation. It has appointed a surveyor who assessed the actual amount at Rs. 72,537/- and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A10 marked. Refuting her evidence, R1 & R2 filed the affidavit evidence of the Executive Legal of R1and the Divisional Manager of R2. They did not file any documents.
7) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the accident took place in the midnight of 28.8.2004 and therefore both the insurance companies are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,78,730/- with interest @ 7.5% besides costs.
8) Aggrieved by the said decision, both the insurance companies preferred the appeals contending that they were not liable to pay compensation on the ground that at the time of accident either the period of policy was not commenced or that the period of policy was expired.
9) The point that arises for consideration is which of the insurance companies is liable to pay the amount claimed under the policy?
10) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant owns a lorry bearing No. AP 16 TU 2704 insured with R1 under policy Ex. A6 for the period from 29.8.2003 to mid night of 28.8.2004 for Rs. 10 lakhs. The said vehicle was also insured with R2 the appellant in F.A. 371/2007 for the period from 29.8.2004 at 00.000 hours to mid night of 28.8.2005 for Rs. 8 lakhs evidenced under Ex. A7 policy.
11) The vehicle of the complainant met with accident on the mid night of 28.8.2004 evidenced under Ex. A3 FIR and A4 Panchanama. The complainant got the vehicle damage estimated through Sri Durga Mechanical Works, Vijaywada vide Ex. A8 estimate. Though the insurance companies appointed surveyors to assess the loss for the reasons best known did not file those reports before the Dist. Forum. Belatedly Surveyor’s Report was filed by R1 in appeal along with photographs. He was of the view that the policy was expired at the time of accident. Along with appeal R2 the New India Assurance Company filed the report of the insurance investigator. He concluded stating that “ the accident is genuine as per our investigations. As stated in the FIR the insured vehicle AP-16-TU-2704 met with an accident on 28/8/2004 at 12 p.m. in the night. However, the insurance cover also commences sharp at 12 p.m. in the night of 28th or 00.00 hours of 29th. Looking to the circumstances and the distances we are of the opinion that the accident occurred before the insurance commenced. However, we leave it to the insurers to take a suitable decision on the said matter. “
12) Now the insurance companies intend to contend that neither of them had insured the vehicle at the time of accident, and was not liable to pay compensation, forgetting the fact that both the insurance companies policies covered the exact time at which the accident took place. While R1 had covered the insurance policy from 29.8.2003 to mid night of 28.8.2004 and the R2 insurance company commenced the policy period from midnight of 28/29.8.2004 at 00.00 hours to mid night of 28.8.2005. This period is over lapped. When one policy is about to be expired, the other policy period commenced. Therefore the Dist. Forum opined that both the companies are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. We do not see any flaw in appreciation of evidence in this regard. In a way both the companies are liable to pay the compensation in view of time of accident. Both of them cannot disown their liability by alleging that the other insurance company was liable to pay. Considering the circumstances, we direct both the insurance companies to contribute equal amounts or pay the amount and collect it from the other company. The joint and several liability as opined by the Dist. Forum cannot be found fault with. We do not see any merits in the appeals.
13) In the result the appeals are dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/- each. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt. 20. 02. 2009.
*pnr.
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
