Date of filing:14.8.2013
Date of Disposal:1.8.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.
C.C.No.146 OF 2013
Between :
Suryadevara Murali Babu, S/o Chidambara Rao, Hindu, 59 years, Retired Employee, Properties, Flat No.203, R/o Door No.15-66/10, Wishper Meadous, Prabhunagar, Poranki, Penamaluru Taluq, Krishna District. V.J.C.C.
….. Complainant.
And
1. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep., by its General Manager, Reliance Center, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001.
2. The Branch Manager, M/s Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., 3rd Floor, Surya Towers, M.G.Road, Vijayawada - 10.
…....Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 24.7.2014 in the presence of Sri C.V.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri T.Veerabhadra Rao, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant purchased a policy with add on cover nil depreciation policy for the vehicle Ford Fiesta bearing registration No.AP16 BS 1217 and is in force vide policy No.1405422311001793. As his vehicle met with an accident and on the advice of the 2nd opposite party the complainant made a claim on 5.12.2012 and got his vehicle serviced at M/s Lakshmi Ford a unit of Subhalakshmi Motors Private Limited, Vijayawada. After the survey made by the surveyor of the opposite parties surprisingly the opposite parties declined to compensate the claim of the complainant contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy issued by them. Immediately the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and demanded for his grievance. But the 1st opposite party made a letter to the complainant by denying its liability. But it seems that both the opposite parties are trying to escape from the liability under the policy sold to the complainant and thereby causing, mental agony and wrongful loss to him. The complainant paid the necessary charges of Rs.45,319/- incurred for the service of his vehicle at Lakshmi Ford, Vijayawada, as the opposite parties accepted to pay the charges at Rs.27,500/- only and inclined to indemnify the balance amount for the damage and loss caused to the vehicle and a reason that the service centre where the complainant got his vehicle repaired is not tie up with them. The complainant number of times approached over telephone by spending his valuable time and money for settlement of his claim but the opposite parties failed to do so. Having no other way the complainant got issued a demand notice on 24.6.2013 through his counsel to the opposite parties to compensate the loss caused to him. The same was acknowledged by the 2nd opposite party and so far there is no response or acknowledgement from the 1st opposite party. The acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service towards the complainant to settle the claim. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.17,819/- to the complainant which was spent by him towards repairs with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 14.12.2012 till realization of the amount and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs of this complaint and such other reliefs.
2. The 2nd opposite party filed its version and the 1st opposite party adopted the same.
The version of the opposite parties is in brief:
The opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant informed about the accident dated 22.10.2012 stating that another vehicle hit his vehicle. The opposite parties registered the claim on 23.10.2012. The complainant hand over a letter on 29.10.2012 stating that his vehicle met with an accident on 22.10.2012 and that he wants to withdraw his claim due to low repair costs and further requested to accept his request. Basing on the letter submitted by the complainant for the accident the opposite parties closed the claim on 29.10.2012. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 and on behalf of the opposite parties Sri P.V.Kiran Kumar, Manager of the 2nd opposite party filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant in not compensating the balance amount of Rs.17,819/- to him?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the documents in hand the complainant obtained insurance policy Ex.A.7 covering nil depreciation for his vehicle Ford Fiesta bearing Registration No.AP 16 BS 1217. The complainant says that as the policy is in force his vehicle met with an accident and he informed the same to the 2nd opposite party and on his advice he made a claim on 5.12.2012 under Ex.A.1 and the net payable was assessed at Rs.27,500/- by opposite party and got his vehicle serviced at M/s Laxmi Ford a unit of Subhalakshmi Motors Pvt., Ltd., Vijayawada under Ex.A.2 invoice of Laxmi Ford dated 14.12.2012 and cash receipt Ex.A.3 from Laxmi Ford dated 14.12.2012 for Rs.45,319/-. After survey made by the opposite parties under Ex.A.1 the opposite party declined to compensate the claim of the complainant, under Ex.A.5 by denying its liability stating the reason that the service center where the complainant got his vehicle repaired is not tie up with the opposite party. On several requests made by him, the opposite party failed to compensate the amount of the damages of the vehicle. Therefore he got issued a legal notice Ex.A.6 dated 18.6.2013 through his advocate to opposite parties demanding to indemnify the total loss caused to him under the claim in total as promised by them in their policy terms and conditions. As otherwise the complainant will proceed to the court of law for his redressal. The 1st opposite party received the said notice under Ex.A.8. Ex.A.9 and Ex.A.10 car insurance policy, cashless garages and motor insurance add-on cover nil depreciation respectively issued by opposite parties.
7. The opposite parties says that the complainant informed about the accident on 22.10.2012 and they registered the claim on 23.10.2012. The complainant handover a letter Ex.B.1 on 29.10.2012 stating that his vehicle met with an accident on 22.10.2012 and he wants to withdraw his claim due to low repair costs and further requested to accept his request. Basing on the letter submitted by the complainant the claim was closed on 29.10.2012 under Ex.B.2. Ex.B.3 is information about other claims of the complainant to the same vehicle with the opposite parties. Ex.B.4 is consent letter of nil depreciation claim and photocopy of, claim withdrawal letter dated 29.10.2012 of the complainant, claim form and cancelled cheque issued by opposite party to the complainant.
8. The complainant denied Ex.B.1 and he filed I.A.57/2014 on 6.3.2014 praying the Forum to re-open the case for further evidence of the petitioner/complainant and to get the expert opinion and to file the document. The case is re-opened. The complainant filed I.A.92/2014 praying the Forum to issue summons to the principal S.R.R. & C.V.R. Government Degree College, Vijayawada to produce the documents 1. Staff attendance register for the year 2012 particularly on 30.6.2012 when the applicant put his signature on his superannuation date and 2. Staff acquaintance register bearing the signature of the applicant on 28.8.2012 acknowledging the cheque. The petition allowed and the documents are produced and on verification of the signatures the I.A. is closed. The complainant filed another I.A.58/2014 praying the Forum to send the documents i.e., claim withdraw letter dated 29.10.2012 alleged to have been written by him to the 2nd opposite party, along with his admitted signatures to the Forensic Department of Hand-Writing expert for opinion. The petition is allowed no counter and original withdrawal of claim letter are filed by opposite parties sending, photocopy would not serve the purpose. Since the petition is closed. The opposite parties took several adjournments to file another claims of the complainant for the same vehicle and the original of Ex.B.1. But the opposite parties failed to produce the same. On verifying the registers produced by the principal S.R.R. & C.V.R. Government Degree College the signatures of the complainant in those registers and on perusing the signatures of the complainant on complaint are one and the same. We, the Forum noticed that the signature on Ex.B.1 and the signatures of the complainant in college record are not one and the same. Ex.B.1 alleged to have been written by the complainant is not tallied with college record and complaint signatures. When the complainant not agreed that he had not written the Ex.B.1 and the signatures are not tallied, it seems the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.17,819/- to the complainant as assessed by the opposite parties with interest from 14.12.2012 when the complainant paid the same to the servicing center. The complainant is entitled to get the same from the opposite parties. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.17,819/- as assessed by its surveyor with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 14.12.2012 when the complainant paid the same to the service center till realization and to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected. Time for compliance one month.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 1st day of August, 2014.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 S.Muralil Babu D.W.1 P.V.Kiran Kumar,
Complainant Manager, of the
(by affidavit) 2nd opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.A.1 05.12.2012 Photocopy of Report and estimation of the surveyor of the opposite parties.
Ex.A.2 14.12.2012 Photocopy of Invoice issued by Lakshmi Ford A Unit of Subhalakshmi Motors Pvt., Ltd., Vijayawada.
Ex.A.3 14.12.2012 Photocopy of Receipt issued by Lakshmi Ford A Unit of Subhalakshmi Motors Pvt., Ltd., Vijayawada.
Ex.A.4 06.02.2013 Photocopy of Letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.5 18.03.2013 Photocopy of Letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.6 18.06.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.7 . . Photocopy of Reliance Private car vehicle certificate cum policy schedule.
Ex.A.8 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.9 Web page of the opposite parties for addresses of cashless
garages in Vijayawada.
Ex.A.10 . . Web page of the opposite parties for coverage and applicability of the policy.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 29.10.2012 Attested true copy of letter from the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.B.2 . . Attested true copy of Survey Details, Assessment Details and Status History.
Ex.B.3 . . Attested True copy of Claims No. and details of paid and withdrawn cases.
Ex.B.4 . . Bunch of Attested true copies of documents.
PRESIDENT(FAC)
