BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1155/2008 against C.C. 39/2006, Dist. Forum, Nizamabad
Between:
1) Manager, M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd.
Kishandas Compound,
Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad
2) Tyagarajan, Chairman
Shriam Group of Companies
Mookambika Complex
3rd Floor, No. 4
Lady Desikachors Road
Mylapore, Chennai-4. *** Appellants/
Ops 1 & 3
And
1) Y. Ganapathi, S/o. Muthenna
Age: 53 years, Advocate
R/o. 10-14-1766, Sitaramngar
Varni Road, Nizamabad *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) National Insurance Company
Laxmiraj Complex
Jawahar Road, Nizamabad *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3) The Managing Director
Road Safety Club
Mookambika Complex
3rd Floor, No. 4
Lady Desikachors Road
Mylapore, Chennai-4. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 4
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. M. Ramgopal Reddy & (R3)
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. G. Rajeshwara Rao (R1)
M/s. Kota Subba Rao (R2)
F.A. 1158/2008 against C.C. 39/2006, Dist. Forum, Nizamabad
Between:
The Managing Director
Road Safety Club
Mookambika Complex
3rd Floor, No. 4
Lady Desikachors Road
Mylapore, Chennai-4. *** Appellant/Op4
And
1) Y. Ganapathi, S/o. Muthenna
Age: 53 years, Advocate
R/o. 10-14-1766, Sitaramngar
Varni Road, Nizamabad *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Manager,
M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd.
Kishandas Compound,
Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad
3) Tyagarajan, Chairman
Shriam Group of Companies
Mookambika Complex
3rd Floor, No. 4
Lady Desikachors Road
Mylapore, Chennai-4. *** Respondents/
Ops 1 & 3
4) National Insurance Company
Laxmiraj Complex
Jawahar Road, Nizamabad *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. M. Ramgopal Reddy +(R2&R3)
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. G. Rajeshwara Rao (R1)
M/s. Kota Subba Rao (R4)
F.A. 1180/2008 against C.C. 39/2006, Dist. Forum, Nizamabad
Between:
1) National Insurance Company
Laxmiraj Complex
Jawahar Road, Nizamabad *** Appellant/
Op No. 2
And
1) Y. Ganapathi, S/o. Muthenna
Age: 53 years, Advocate
R/o. 10-14-1766, Sitaramngar
Varni Road, Nizamabad *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Manager,
M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd.
Kishandas Compound,
Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad
3) Tyagarajan, Chairman
Shriam Group of Companies
Mookambika Complex
3rd Floor, No. 4
Lady Desikachors Road
Mylapore, Chennai-4. *** Respondents/
Ops 1 & 3
4) The Managing Director
Road Safety Club
Mookambika Complex
3rd Floor, No. 4
Lady Desikachors Road
Mylapore, Chennai-4. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 4
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Kota Subba Rao
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. G. Rajeshwara Rao (R1)
M/s. M. Ramgopal Reddy (R2 to 4)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) These appeals arise against the order of the Dist. Forum in directing the appellants to pay Rs. 29,591/- together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
2) Though the opposite parties have preferred independent appeals in view of the fact that all these appeal arise against very same complaint, it is convenient to dispose of the same by way of common order:
3) The case of the complainant in brief is that he subscribed to the scheme floated by R1 whereby he would be provided insurance for a period of 8 years on his car on payment of Rs. 20,000/- in lump sum. Accordingly he paid the said sum on 31.7.2001 and became a member of R4. Accordingly it has insured his Matiz car from 31.7.2001 to 30.7.2002 and from 30.6.2002 to 29.6.2003 through National Insurance Company and from 11.7.2003 to 10.7.2004 through Bajaj Allianz Genera Insurance Company. He has purchased another car Fiat on 26.5.2004. When he sought for cancellation of insurance coverage for his Matiz car and transfer the same to Fiat car, R1 declined to do so, and therefore he was forced to pay Rs. 18,361/- towards insurance policy. Finally R1 had agreed to transfer the policy provided he paid Rs. 3,000/-. Accordingly the said amount was paid. The vehicle was damaged on different occasions and the same was intimated to both parties. He submitted his claim for Rs. 10,223/- on 27.9.2005, Rs. 10,918/- on 17.12.2005, Rs. 6,050/- on 13.2.2006. It did not settle the claim. Subsequently when he parked his car at Bank Street it was damaged and the said fact was informed. He had spent Rs. 4,800/- for repairs. Thus in all he spent Rs. 73,352/- and therefore he claimed the said amount together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.
4) R1 resisted the case. It alleged that it has acted as collection centre for Road Safety Club programme wherein insurance company would provide insurance coverage to the member. R4 the Road Safety Club who provides insurance through an insurance company. It was neither issuer of membership nor insurer of the policy. It is a chit fund company. It neither demanded Rs. 20,000/- for providing insurance coverage nor collected Rs. 3,000/- for transfer of insurance coverage for his new car. The terms and conditions categorically mention that the Road Safety Club was no way concerned with the claim. He was advised to approach the insurance company. It has no concern with the alleged claim, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) R2 insurance company equally resisted the case. However, it admitted that the complainant has insured his Matiz car covering the period from 31.7.2001 to 30.7.2002 and from 30.6.2002 to 29.6.2003. His vehicle was subsequently insured with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company from 11.7.2003 to 10.7.2004. Later new fiat car was insured with TATA AIG insurance company from 26.5.2004 to 25.5.2005. Subsequently it was insured with it from 18.8.2005 to 17.8.2006. The policy was taken by Road Safety Club (R4) in the name of the complainant by paying premium of Rs. 10,381/-. The complainant informed that on 7.9.2005 while he was going to petrol pump the vehicle met with accident. The fiat car was not insured with it but insured with TATA AIG Insurance Company. It was not made as a party and therefore the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. It was not aware that the complainant had approached R1 to transfer the policy to its company, nor it had received any amount for transfer of insurance coverage. It was not aware as to the dates on which the accidents took place and the damages that were caused. As per the intimation the complainant mentioned that the vehicle met with accident on 7.9.2005 while going to a petrol pump from his house due to irregular road surface. As the loss does not exceed policy excesses of Rs. 6,000/- the surveyor assessed ‘NIL’ liability. Equally in regard to the accident that said to have been occurred on 3.11.2005, loss was assessed at Rs. 4,532/- and as it was within the policy excesses of Rs. 6,000/- it was referred as ‘No Claim’. Again on 27.12.2005 at about 7.00 p.m it said to have been met with accident at Secunderabad while parking the car and that the surveyor Sri Venkata Prasad Reddy assessed the loss at Rs. 4,800/- being below the policy excess not liable to compensate. Except these claims the complainant did not inform about the other claims. It denied payment of Rs. 31,991/- either towards repairs or the factum of payment of Rs. 18,361/- towards insurance for the period from 26.5.2004 to 25.5.2005 and Rs. 3,000/- towards effecting transfer. It was never insured with it. It was not liable to pay compensation, if the claim falls below the policy excess viz., voluntary excess of Rs. 5,000/- plus policy excess of Rs. 1,000/- and that was made clear to Road Safety Club R4.
6) R3 Chairman of Shriram Group Companies (R1) reiterated the facts alleged by R1. He alleged that he has nothing to do with the claim of the complainant. He was impleaded in proceedings which was vexatious. No notice was issued to him before impleading him as a party. It had nothing to do with the Road Safety Club (R4). The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The complaint was barred by limitation. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7) R4 Road Safety Club equally resisted the case. The claim that was filed was against the Managing Director. In fact there was no Managing Director in its company. No doubt the complainant was joined as a member in the Road Safety Club on payment of Rs. 20,000/- towards membership fee. It has provided complimentary insurance coverage for his vehicle for a period of 8 years. In case no claim was received it would refund Rs. 20,000/- as a token of recognition and safety bonus for his safety driving skills. The insurance coverage was for his Matiz car and later it was transferred for Fiat car purchased by him. It has promptly covered the vehicle by taking insurance policy. The complainant claimed damages on account of four accidents that took place on four different dates during the period from 31.7.2001 to 29.6.2003. The vehicle was covered by a policy issued by National Insurance Company Ltd. (R2) and later by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., from 11.7.2003 to 10.7.2004 and from 26.5.2004 to 25.5.2005 was covered by TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd. The accidents were occurred between 27.9.2005 and 18.5.2006 the insurance company which had issued the policy was not impleaded as a party. The claims if any shall be addressed to and sorted out with the insurance company. As long as the membership is in force the policy will cover. The complainant without invoking the arbitration clause filed the complaint, more over the jurisdiction is restricted to Chennai Courts only. There was no territorial jurisdiction for the Dist. Forum. The complaint was barred by limitation. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
8) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A29 marked while R1 filed the affidavit evidence of its General Manager, the insurance company (R2) filed the affidavit evidence of its Administrative Officer and Exs. B1 to B24 were marked on behalf of respondents.
9) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant having been admitted as a member in Road Safety Club (R4) after receiving Rs. 20,000/- under Ex. A1 and that R1 & R3 are sister concerns of R4 and the premium having been received by R2 insurance company, all of them are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 29,591/- covered by bills Exs. A15, A18, A20 and A24 together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
10) Aggrieved by the said decision R1 & R3 Manager and Managing Director of Shriram Group of companies respectively preferred the appeal F.A. No. 1155/2008 contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. It had nothing to do either with R4 or R2. There was no privity of contract between them. They were impleaded unjustly, and therefore prayed that the appeals be allowed by dismissing the complaint.
11) R2 insurance company preferred F.A. 1180/2008 contending that claim for different amounts for the accidents that took place on 7.9.2005, 3.11.2005 and 27.12.2005 were less than policy excesses of Rs. 6,000/-. Under the policy voluntary excess of Rs. 5,000/- and policy excess of Rs. 1,000/- have to be excluded. It is liable for the claim amounts beyond Rs. 6,000/-. In fact under Ex. A24 the claim was for Rs. 4,800/- only. Granting Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony though there was no liability at all, and it had exceeded more than the damages claimed. Under the terms of the policy it was not liable to pay and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
12) Road Safety Club (R4) preferred F.A. 1158/2008 contending that R2 issued the policy vide Ex. B1 for fiat car. When it has ensured issuance of policy no deficiency in service could be attributed to it. There is an arbitration clause which debars the Dist. Forum to adjudicate the matter. There is no deficiency in service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
13) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
14) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is the owner of fiat car. He joined as a member in Road Safety Club (R4) which in turn provided insurance coverage to his car having received Rs. 20,000/-. R2 National Insurance Company issued policy for the period covering from 18.8.2005 to 17.8.2006 vide Ex. B1. The complainant alleges that the car met with accident on 7.9.2005, 3.11.2005 and 27.12.2005. He claimed various amounts for the period under Ex. B1 policy. The contention of the insurance company is that the complainant had taken different policies with different insurance companies, and it was not liable. This contention is taken obviously in order to confuse the issue. Those policies have nothing to do with the case on hand.
15) In fact when the complainant has given intimation about the accident on 7.9.2005, R2 insurance company appointed Mr. K. S. Babji, Surveyor & Loss Assessor who assessed the loss at Rs.4, 397/- after deducting depreciation and some other items vide Ex. B6. The surveyor himself mentioned in his report under the head ‘Remarks & Observations:’ “The insured/repairer had accepted for the above assessment.” The fact that there was policy excess, was informed by the insurance company to R4 under letter Ex. B9 though in the policy, the complainant is noted as the insured. This is unjust. The complainant has again intimated that an accident took place on 3.11.2005 under Ex. B10 enclosing a bill for Rs. 10,266/-. On that Sri G. Koteswara Rao submitted motor in-house verification report Ex. B13 mentioning that the amount would come to Rs. 4,532/-, and that voluntary and policy excess excludes the assessed amount. Therefore the claim was repudiated on the ground that there was policy excess and the same was again informed to R4 under Ex. 16. The complainant yet again on 27.12.2005 intimated that an accident took place in the parking place at Secunderabad
enclosing a bill for Rs. 6,050/-. Basing on which it had appointed Mr. Venkata Prasad Reddy a surveyor who after conducting survey assessed the loss at Rs. 4,800/- vide Ex. B20. Alleging that there was policy excess the claim was repudiated by letter dt. 16.11.2006 by the Divisional Manager, Chennai Division vide Ex. B22.
16) The complainant a practicing advocate by profession having purchased the car and having got it insured have been claiming the amounts whenever accidents were taking place after getting it repaired after informing the insurance company. Though the claim was more than Rs. 6,000/- and the complainant having genuinely spending the amounts, informing the insurance company, however, the insurance surveyors after deducting some amounts on one ground on the other, assessing the net loss lower than Rs. 6,000/-, and was constantly denying the claims on the ground that they were policy excesses. There is no scientific basis either for deducting the amounts or assessing at below Rs. 6,000/-. The surveyors by resorting to this cannot make his claim inadmissible. The Dist. Forum after considering the amounts spent by the complainant basing on the bills rightly directed it to pay Rs. 29,591/-. The surveyors without any basis has been deducting the amounts, despite the fact that they have accepted the amounts spent by the complainant in this regard. It may be stated herein though the insurance policy was issued under Ex. B1 and all the claims were during the policy period, the insurance company had taken a strange contention, that no valid policy was given by it during the period and it was issued by some other insurance company. This plea is unjust and unethical only made in order to get over the payment of amount. The complainant was denied the amount genuinely spent by him. Therefore the Dist. Forum has rightly awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony. As far as R1 & R3 are concerned, there is no reason why the complainant has impleaded Shriram Group of companies. It was on the ground they are sister concerns. In the first place there is no evidence to this effect. The Dist. Forum has unjustly directed R1 & R3 to pay this amount, equally so with R4 Road Safety Club. It had paid premium it got the insurance policy issued for the said period evidenced under Ex. B1. There is no deficiency in service on its part. The Dist. Forum equally unjustly directed R4 also to pay compensation along with R1 & R3. Therefore the appeals preferred by R1& R3 and R4 are to be allowed.
17) In the result the appeals preferred by R1 & R3 in F.A. No. 1155/2008 and also the appeal preferred by R4 in F.A. 1158/2008 are allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum directing them to pay compensation. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The appeal preferred by the insurance company in F.A. 1180/2008 is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 28. 01. 2011.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
