BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1267/2008 against C.C. 18/2008,   Dist. Forum, Kadapa 

Between:

The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Rep. by its Branch Manager

Branch Office : 22-269-1

Sundaracharyulu Street

Kadapa.                                                       ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Opposite Party                                                                         And

1)  Y. Gangi Reddy,

S/o. Narayana Reddy

2.  Y. Ganga Devi

W/o. Y. Gangi Reddy

R/o.  Udavagandla Village

Thondur Mandal, Kadapa Dist.                  ***                         Respondents/      

                                                                                                Complainants.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. Naresh Byrapaneni.

Counsel for the Resp:                                  M/s. J. Seshagiri Rao.

CORAM:

                         HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

                                                             &

  SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THE  TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER  TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                This is an appeal preferred by the  insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing  it to pay Rs. 43,323/- .

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that he has taken special package policy for his tractor  and trailer for Rs. 3,08,108/- for the period covering from  7.11.2005 to  6.11.2006.  While so  on 2.3.2007  the driver of the  vehicle drove it  in a rash and negligent due to which  the tractor was turned turtle and was  badly damaged including the trailer.    On a report the police  registered it as a case in crime No. 13/2007 u/s 337 IPC.    He got the tractor and trailer repaired through  M/s. Gold Fields  & Co., Proddatur by incurring  nearly Rs. 1,50,000/-.    Despite notice got issued through his counsel  on 9.7.2007  the insurance company did not choose to settle the claim and therefore he filed the complaint claiming  Rs. 1,50,000/- towards repairs  together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and costs.

3)                 The insurance company resisted the case.    While admitting  issuance of policy it alleged that  the case registered in Crime No.   13/2007  establishes that the owner of the tractor has  used his tractor other than the purpose for which  he had purchased.    He entrusted the tractor to a third party  who used  the tractor for  transportation of soil in violation of terms of the policy.    It does not cover for hire.    It has deputed  Sri M. M. Baig for spot survey  who estimated the damages.  Later it has deputed  Sri P.  Sreenivasula Reddy, Surveyor & Loss Assessor  who conducted final survey and estimated the net loss at Rs. 42,323/-.  However, he mentioned that it was subject to production of bills and deductions towards salvage etc.   It has given proper reply to the legal notice.    Since the complainant could not file the bills it has repudiated  on  17.9.2007 as ‘No Claim’.  Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked while the insurance company filed  Exs. B1 to B7.

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined  that the very surveyor of the insurance company  estimated the damages at Rs. 43,323/-  and therefore directed the insurance company  to pay the said amount. 

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the  insurance company preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that the claim was submitted by a third party.  He did not furnish the requisite bills,  and even if it is considered  it would show that  he had spent  Rs. 21,352/-.  The Dist. Forum ought not to have granted  more than the amount spent by him,  and therefore it prayed that the appeal be allowed.

7)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum  is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that the complainant  had taken a special package policy covering the risk of tractor and trailer  owned by him.    It is also not in dispute that on  2.3.2007 it met with an accident  while it was entrusted  to a third party who in turn was taking the load of earth.    On a report the police  registered it as a case in Crime No. 13/2007  u/s 337 IPC  vide FIR Ex. A2.    The police after investigation filed charge sheet  against the driver  of the vehicle under Ex. A3.   When the said fact was informed the very insurance company  has deputed a surveyor & loss assessor  Sri P.  Sreenivasulu Reddy  who after inspection of the vehicle had assessed the damages at Rs. 43,323/- after deducting depreciation, salvage etc.    When the complainant informed that he got it repaired  through M/s.  Gold Fields & Co., Prodattur the insurance  insisted by its letters Exs. B6 & B7  to furnish the bills.    Since the complainant did not furnish the bills the insurance company  repudiated the claim as ‘No Claim’.    Obviously this is incorrect.   In fact the complainant could file whatever bills  he was having.  While   Ex. A1 no  doubt would show that  he spent an amount of Rs. 21,352/-,  we may state that the policy was not an indemnity policy.    The complainant would be entitled to whatever damage that  was caused to him.  

9)                It may be stated herein that he got it repaired after spending some amount  and on the fond hope on receipt of claim amount,  he would get it repaired fully.    There is no pre-condition  that the assured should get it repaired in order  to  claim  damages  from  the insurance company.    At some times, the assured  may not have requisite money to get it repaired.    Thinking that the insurance company would settle  his claim, he would be waiting.    In some case he might have got  the basic repairs  done in order to make it road worthy, however thinking that the amount would be settled  and ,  and with remaining amount he would get it repaired.    Therefore the contention that  the  bills  were  not produced  in order  to  settle  the claim cannot be accepted.  

Though the insurance company contended that the complainant has  used the vehicle contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy,  and it was not intended to be hired,  the very policy was not filed in order to unravel  this contention.    The Dist. Forum has rightly  awarded the amount  basing on the very same surveyor’s report  appointed by the insurance company which in a way  binding on it.    We do not see any mis- appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard.   We do not see any merits in the appeal.

10)               In  the result the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.  

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.  29. 12.  2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”