BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 990 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.839 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD

Between
B.Shai Reddy S/o B.Hari Kishan Reddy
Aged 36 years, Occ: Advocate
R/o Plot No.86, Raji Reddy Nagar,
Champapet, R.R.District

1.   M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Osman Plaza, 6-3-352/1, 2^ndrd

2.   M/s Tata Motors Ltd.,
Marketing and Customer Support
Passenger Car Business Unit, 8^th Mumbai-400 005, rep. by its Regional Manager

3.   M/s Tata Motors Ltd.,
2^nd Secunderabad-3, rep. by its Regional Manager

4.   M/s Autofin Ltd.,

16-11-1/1/2, Srinivasa Towers
Near HDFC Bank, New Malakpet
Hyderabad rep. by its Regional Manager

Counsel for the Appellant                    

Counsel for the Respondent No.1           Counsel for the Respondents no.2 and 3

Counsel for the Respondent no.4          

F.A.No.736 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.839 OF 2007

Between
M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
rep. by its authorized officer
Osman Plaza, 6-3-352/1, 2^ndrd

1.   B.Shai Reddy S/o B.Hari Kishan Reddy
Aged 35 years, Occ: Advocate
R/o Plot No.86, Rajreddy Nagar,
Champapet, R.R.District

Respondent/complainant

2.   M/s Tata Motors Ltd.,
Marketing and Customer Support
Passenger Car Business Unit, 8^th Mumbai-400 005, rep. by its Regional Manager

3.   M/s Tata Motors Ltd.,
2^nd Secunderabad-3, rep. by its Regional Manager

4.   M/s Autofin Ltd.,

16-11-1/1/2, Srinivasa Towers
Near HDFC Bank, New Malakpet
Hyderabad rep. by its Regional Manager

Counsel for the Appellant                    

Counsel for the Respondent No.1           Counsel for the Respondents no.2 and 3

Counsel for the Respondent no.4          

   QUORUM:      SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

   ***

       These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the District Forum-II Hyderabad8397990 of 2008736 of 2009

       F.A.No.736 of 2009           

         Further, The complainant has not filed any report or expert’s opinion to show that the vehicle caught fire due to defect in the vehicle.       

       The District Forum has allowed complaint directing the opposite party no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.4,53,815/-   

1)               Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay any compensation to the complainant?

2)               To what relief?

POINT NO.1        th th         

The police Shamshabad issued FIR dated 26.12.2006 on complaint lodged by the complainant that at about 9.45 p.m. on 16. 12.2006 flames came out from the AC windows of the car while they were proceeding in the car and immediately they jumped out of the car.        

The complainant has got issued legal notice dated 25.1.2007 wherein the opposite parties no.1 to 4 that the fire accident occurred in AC windows of the vehicle and the car was burnt into ashes due to manufacturing defect resulting an expenditure of Rs.1.5 lakhs incurred by the complainant for the treatment of the burn injuries sutained in the accident and according to the plastic surgeon’s opinion the complainant may be required to spend an amount of Rs.2 lakhs for plastic surgery.         

In the light of denial of the opposite parties that they were not informed of the incident till they had received the legal notice, it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove his contention that he had informed the opposite parties about the incident.     The medical record, no doubt shows that the complainant was discharged from Sridhar Hospital, Santhoshnagar Hyderabad on 9.4.2007.    

The complainant had not responded to the request made by the opposite party no.3 to send the vehicle after the accident to the opposite party no.4 workshop for attending to any repairs.               

The claim was lodged with the opposite party no.1 on 28.12.2006.       

2.                 The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:

a)                Consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown, failures or breakages

b)                Damage to tyres and tubes unless the vehicle is damaged at the same time in which case the liability of the company shall be limited to 50% of the cost of the replacement and

c)                 Any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence

The opposite parties no.2 to 4 pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect.             

The opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer as he had parted interest with the vehicle by selling it in scrap to the third parties.    

The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his treatment and further sum of Rs.2 lakhs stated to have been required for plastic surgery that the complainant was advised to undergo at some point of time in future.      

1.                                         

Nature of Injury                                                                     

(i)        (ii)                                                              (iii)                    (iv)                                                                                      

It is not the case of the complainant that he has sustained any disability or loss of limbs etc., which are the parameters governing the claim in regard to the amount for reimbursement in case of the     

 In any view of the matter, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

In the result the appeal F.A.No.736 of 2009 filed by the opposite party no1. is allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed.   

KMK*