Date of filing: 24.02.2012.
Date of disposal: 22.11.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Thursday, the 22nd day of November, 2012
C.C.No.43 of 2012
Between:
Edupuganti Ravi Kanth, S/o Venkateswara Rao, SF-2, Mega Town Ship, Ganeswara Residency, Vijayawada – 7.
. … Complainant.
And
1. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, Rep: by its Senior Branch Manager, Ali Baig Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada – 2.
2. M/s Subhalakshmi Motors (P) Limited, Rep: by Manager, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada. (proforma party)
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 20.11.2012, in the presence of Sri T.V.N. Vasudeva Rao, advocate for complainant; Sri V.V.S. Sai Babu, advocate for opposite part no.1 and Sri Ch. Sreepathi Rao, advocate for opposite party no.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N.Tripura Sundari)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to pay insurance amount of Rs.3,93,000/- with interest, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards damages and to pay costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant insured his Ford car bearing No. AP 16 BK 6399 with the 1st opposite party company under comprehensive policy No.550402/31/61/00003606 for a period from 17.9.2009 to 16.9.2010. The car met with accident on 21.6.2010 near Ammapalem divider in West Godavari district. The car was badly damaged. It was intimated to the 1st opposite party. A survey deputed by the 1st opposite party, conducted spot survey. Later the vehicle was brought to the 2nd opposite party who estimated damages to a tune of Rs.5,16,000/-. The complainant submitted claim form to the 1st opposite party who deputed final survey. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the damages to a tune of Rs.5,16,000/-. The complainant got the vehicle repaired and he paid Rs.3,90,000/- to the garage as per the invoice. The 1st opposite party did not pay the cost of damage as per the policy. The 1st opposite party had not settled the claim. Then the complainant got a legal notice issued on 30.6.2011. The 1st opposite party received legal notice and got a reply notice issued with false allegations. As per the reply the surveyor appointed by the 1st opposite party had assessed the net loss at Rs.1,27,000/- including spare parts, labour charges, spot repairs etc. It is also stated in the reply that the amount of Rs.39,500/- required for repair did not relate to accident and damage and the repair charges shot up due to negligent attitude of the complainant. The complainant issued rejoinder notice on 15.11.2011. As claim is not satisfied, the present complaint is filed. 3. The 1st opposite party filed written version in the form of counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and further stating as follows: The complainant had insured his Ford car bearing No. AP 16 BK 6399 with the 1st opposite party company under a policy valid from 17.9.2009 to 16.9.2010. The complainant did not inform the alleged accident occurred on 21.6.2010 immediately to the 1st opposite party. A motor claim intimation letter was sent on 28.6.2010 with estimation date 24.6.2010. The accident occurred on 21.6.2010 was not registered and no FIR was issued. The complainant did not report to the police. The vehicle was not inspected by IRDA surveyor on the spot of accident. There is no spot survey report. The complainant had removed the vehicle from the accident place without intimation and consent of the 1st opposite party. The complainant deprived the 1st opposite party of the opportunity to ascertain the vital information relating to facts of accident including cause and nature of loss, damages, quantum of loss etc. They are necessary to admit the claim. The complainant kept his vehicle for a long time at private garage without taking any safety and protection measures and the alleged vehicle is misused and misplaced and parts and also further damage. The complainant did not get the vehicle repaired for a long time and he took one year time to get the vehicle repaired. The vehicle was subjected to rust and dust when it was idle for one year. The IRDA licencing surveyor inspected and surveyed the vehicle at 2nd opposite party and he assessed a loss of Rs.1,36,000/- and on re-inspection of survey assessed net loss at Rs.1,27,000/-. It was informed to the complainant through letters dated 24.6.2011 and 26.8.2011. The complainant was asked to give consent for further course of action and to furnish the bank account particulars etc. The complainant did not give consent. Instead he gave a legal notice dated 30.9.2011. The 1st opposite party gave a suitable reply. The 1st opposite party is ready and willing to pay Rs.1,27,000/-. The complainant is not entitled to the amounts claimed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed counter stating that it is not proper and necessary party to the proceedings; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party; that the damaged vehicle was brought to the work shop of the 2nd opposite party on 22.6.2010 for repairs; that initial estimation was done on 24.6.2010; that the insurance surveyor took photographs on that vehicle that after advance amount was paid on 17.2.2011 the 2nd opposite party effected repairs and details pre-invoice was issued in the month of April, 2011 that there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party further states that it addressed letters to the complainant asking him to take delivery of the repaired vehicle by paying balance amount but the complainant did not respond; that the complainant is liable to pay the parking charges at Rs.250/- per day for keeping the vehicle in workshop and to avoid the said amount the complainant impleaded the 2nd opposite party in this proceedings and this complaint be dismissed.
5. The complainant filed his affidavit and it is received as evidence of PW-1. The Senior Divisional Manager of 1st opposite party filed his affidavit and it is received as evidence of DW-1.
6. Exs.A1 to A8 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B4 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties. The document filed by the 2nd opposite party on issuance of summons by this Forum is marked as Ex.X1.
7. The points for determination are:
I) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party in not sanctioning the insurance amount as claimed by the complainant?
II) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
8. The parties admit that Ford car of the complainant was insured with the 1st opposite party for the period from 17.9.2009 to 16.9.2010. There is also no dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 21.6.2010. Though the opposite parties state that the complainant has not reported the accident to the police and no FIR was issued, there is no statement that there is no accident and the complainant’s vehicle was not damaged. On the other hand the surveyor appointed by the 1st opposite party had assessed the damaged caused to the vehicle. 10. Pending proceedings the complainant filed photocopy of pre-invoice issued by Laxmi Ford, according to which the total value of estimated repairs was Rs.3,95,070/-. According to the complainant, the 2nd opposite party issued it. But the said pre-invoicing does not bear the stamp of the 2nd opposite party though it bears the stamp of Laxmi Ford. Therefore on the request of the complainant summons were issued to the 2nd opposite party by this Forum to produce the bills.
Then the 2nd opposite party produced a set of two documents, one is the repair order attached with receipt, payment terms etc., and a computer copy of pre-invoicing. The repair order refers to receipt of Rs.40,000/- on 17.2.2011. This may refer to advance amount noted in the version of the 2nd opposite party. So the documents produced by the 2nd opposite party and marked as Ex.X1 did not specifically show that howmuch amount was paid to the 2nd opposite party. Even invoice date 10.10.2012 shows the amount total as Rs.4,80,553/-. In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party states that the complainant has not produced all the bills and receipts for the repairs effected by the 2nd opposite party and there was no opportunity for the insurance company to look into such bills and receipts and to make any further assessment on the basis of such extension said to have been incurred. We find force in this submission. When the complainant has not obtained detailed bills from the 2nd opposite party relating to the repairs said to have been effected to the vehicle, the 1st opposite party may not be in a position to verify the correctness or otherwise of the estimation and may not come to conclusion in assessing damage caused to the vehicle. Therefore instead of deciding the dispute we feel it necessary to direct the 1st opposite party to reconsider the claim of the complainant. The complainant shall be at liberty to submit all the relevant papers. He may take return of the estimate filed here and also obtain copy of Ex.X1 and submit to the 1st opposite party for settlement of the claim. The 1st opposite party shall decide the claim afresh without raising the point of limitation. So we feel that with such observation this complaint may be disposed off.
11. In the result the complaint is ordered directing the 1st opposite party to creconsider the claim of the complainant after complainant submitted further documents necessary to support his claim including copy of Ex.X1, bills and receipts if any issued by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant shall submit all such documents within one month from the date of this order. The 1st opposite party shall decide the claim within two months thereafter. Both parties shall bear their respective costs.
Dictated to Steno N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 22nd day of November, 2012.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
PW – 1, Edupuganti Ravi Kanth, DW-1 Senior Divisional Manager
(by affidavit) of 1st OP, (by affidavit).
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Photocopy of claim intimation letter.
Ex.A2 24.06.2010 Photocopy of particulars of the vehicle.
Ex.A3 30.09.2011 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A4 14.10.2010 Copy of reply notice got issued by OP to the complainant.
Ex.A5 15.11.2011 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A7 Photocopy of certificate of insurance.
Ex.A8 11.07.2012 Original copy of letter issued by NHAI, Project Director to the complainant and photos.
On behalf of the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Copy of private car package policy.
Ex.B2 21.03.2011 Copy of motor final survey report.
Ex.B3 11.06.2011 Computer copy of letter issued by surveyor and loss assessor to 1st opposite party.
Ex.B4 24.02.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP1 to the complainant.
Ex.X1 10.10.2012 Computer copy of pre-invoicing.
PRESIDENT
