Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/46/2014

U.Rajeswari, W/o. U. Subramanyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by The Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

R.Gajendra

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                         Filing Date:-30-08-2014                                                                                                                Order Date: -10-04-2015.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

                                             CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                              SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

            FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND

                                                            FIFTEEN.

C.C.No.46/2014

Between

U.Rajeswari, W/o. U. Subramanyam,

Hindu aged about 35 years,

Residing at Rajula Kandriga Village,

Madibaka Post,

Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District.                                         

                                                                                                         …. Complainant

And

M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep.by The Divisional manager,

D.No.241, Ist Floor, G.N.Mada Street,

Tirupati.                                                                                          …. Opposite party

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 07.04.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri R.Gajendra, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.G.Gajendra, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

                                             ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the complainant, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party in not honouring the claim as per policy.

           2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant purchased Hero Honda Motor Bike on 5.05.2013 with Temporary Registration No.( AP003UFTR3908) for Rs. 50,329/- and the said motor bike was insured with opposite party and accordingly he paid Rs.1,341/- towards premium and the policy was came into force from 15.05.2013 to 14.05.2014. The complainant further submits that on 30.08.2013 the above mentioned motor bike was completely damaged in a fire accident, when it was parked in front of her houses. The same matter was intimated to the opposite party immediately after the fire accident, the surveyor of the opposite party inspected the damaged bike. Then she lodged a police complaint in Yerpedu police station in crime No.105/2013. Then the complainant submitted her claim to the opposite party with all relevant documents. But after several repeated requests made by the complainant to settle her claim, the opposite party finally on 9.03.2014 sent a pre-closure letter by denying her claim, due to non production of post accident registration certificate of the bike, but the complainant submitted that it is highly impossible for her to produce the post accident registration certificate because the said bike was completely damaged and it cannot be registered. Hence she filed the present complaint complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and   pray this Honorable Forum to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.70, 954/- as a claim amount under different heads mentioned in the claim and to pay future interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and to pay costs.

           3. The opposite party came into appearance and filed their written version by admitting the policy of the complainant and stated that the said policy was in force by the date of the accident and the said bike was having temporary registration valid from 15.05.2013 to 13.06.2013 but within the said period, the complainant fail to take permanent registration of her bike. Hence as per the section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act in case of non registration section 192 of M.V.Act come into picture as the alleged fire accident occurred on 30.08.2013, by the date the temporary registration period was expired.

          4. Since the complainant failed to submit required document post accident registration certificate to settle her claim within 15 days of receipt of pre-closure letter dated 19.03.2013. Hence because of non compliance of the conditions in pre-closure letter by the complainant they have closed the claim. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them towards the complainant, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          5. The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and got marked Exs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the Opposite party one Somla Naik, S/o. Sakriya Naik Administrative Officer filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 to B6. Both sides filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         On basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both the parties the points for consideration are:-

(i)       Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party?   

          (ii)       To what relief she is entitled to?      

          (iii)      To what result?

          6. Point No:-(i). There is no dispute of insurance policy of the complainant, same was admitted by the opposite parties and the same was in force by the date of the fire accident and contended that by the date of the fire accident the temporary registration of the bike was expired and the complainant failed to take permanent registration by the date of the accident i.e.30-08-2013 and also contended that the complainant fails to comply the conditions averred in the pre-closure letter dated 19.03.2014 Ex.A3. since the complainant fails to furnish the post accident registration certificate, they have closed the claim as unsettled. But the complainant stated that it is highly impossible to produce post accident registration certificate, as the bike was completely damaged in the fire accident. The next contention of the opposite party is the complainant has violated section.39 of Motor Vehicle Act restricts the person to drive the vehicle at any public place unless the same was registered. But in the present case there is no IOTA of evidence, that the bike was being driven at the time of fire accident. When the complainant stated in her complainant that the fire accident was occurred when the bike was parked in front of her house, the same was not denied and also not disputed the place of the accident hence the argument of the opposite party cannot be considered. Hence the opposite party cannot take shelter of the provisions of section 39 and 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, when Section 43- clause (2) of Motor Vehicle Act provides for the extension of time granted for temporary of registration. Hence there is no force in the argument of opposite party and it cannot be considered.

           The opposite party further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant is not entitled for the claim. But in the present case the opposite party has not placed the basic document policy copy, but they filed Ex. B2 the incomplete insurance copy with only page no. 1. But they did not placed other side of the insurance policy copy page no. 2 along with its terms and conditions which was issued to the complainant at the time of taking the policy. It is well settled that if a party with holds the basic document on which it relies upon then the adverse inference can be drawn against opposite party for non filing of complete policy copy.

          In this particular case it is not possible for renewal of the registration of the bike because it was almost destroyed and damaged into a skeleton in the fire accident. Hence it cannot be registered, same was mentioned in the report of the surveyor under Ex.B6 the photos of the damaged bike clearly shows the status of the bike. Hence the opposite party cannot the shelter of the section 39 and 192 of MV Act without any corroborative evidence for rejection of the claim of the complainant. Hence there is a clear deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for rejecting the claim of the complainant. Hence this point is answered against the opposite party.

          7.Point:- (ii).  By the date of the accident the insurance was in force and the opposite parties appointed the surveyor and he inspected the bike and filed the report under Ex.B6. The surveyor mentioned two modes of the assessment was given. (1). Liability on repair basis is Rs. 43,000/- and (2) liability on salvage loss basis is Rs.37,900/-. Along with the report he filed photos of the damaged bike, in the said photos it clearly evidencing that the bike was totally damaged and it cannot be repaired. However, with regard to the damage of the bike, the opposite party did not effectively challenge the assessed value submitted by the surveyor. But in this particular case we have taken the mode of assessment for liability on salvage loss basis because already the bike is totally damaged. And hence the claim to that extent of Rs.37,900/- is liable to be allowed with interest 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization, and the complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.3,000 as compensation for the careless and indifference attitude in processing the claim by the opposite party, which leads to mental agony suffered by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled costs of Rs.2000/-for the litigation expenses. Accordingly this point is answered.

         8. Point:-  (iii).  In the Result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 37,900/- (Thirty seven thousand nine hundred only) towards the assessed value of the damaged motor bike with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complainant till the date of the realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-[Three thousands only] towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.2000/-(Two Thousands Only) towards costs of the litigation expenses. The opposite party is directed to comply with the order within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

         Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 10^th day of April, 2015.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                  Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

           

C.C.No.46/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1: U.Rajeswari  (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

RW-1: Somla Naik   (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

 

 

 

          EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	A photo copy of F.I.R in crime No.105/2013 by the S.H.O. of Yerpedu Police Station. Dt: 06.09.2013.
2.	Copy of Estimation issued by Sri Gopal Automobiles. Dt: 05.09.2013.
3.	Present-closure letter from Opposite Party. (Photo copy of Served copy). Dt: 19.03.2014.
4.	Office copy of legal notice issued by complainant to Opposite Party. Dt: 24.07.2014.
5.	Reply notice from Opposite Party. Dt: 07.08.2014.

 

 

 

 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	Motor Claim Form submitted by the complainant. Dt: 02.09.2013.
2.	True copy of the policy of motor cycle under policy bearing No.39010231136200621258 valid from 15.05.2013 to 14.05.2014.
3.	Office copy of preclosure Letter. Dt: 19.03.2014 issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant.
4.	Seved copy of Notice dt: 24.07.2014 issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party.
5.	Office copy of Notice Dt: 07.08.2014 issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant.
6.	Report of Surveyor and loss assured for Rs.37,900/-. Dt: 09.03.2014.

 

                                                                                                                    Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                President

                                                              // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

                                                   Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to: - 1. The complainant.

                    2. The opposite party.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.