Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/200/2012

Merugu Syamala Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

I. Santha Rao

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

                  Reg. of the Complaint:02-07-2012                                                                                                                                   

Date of Order:31-07-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                        Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                                       Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                                      

 

FRIDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF JULY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.200/212

 

BETWEEN:

Sri Merugu Syamala Rao S/o Gaviresu,

Hindu, aged 35 years, r/o D.No.1-208 A,

Atchuthapuram Village, Nagirikatakam Post,

Jalumuru Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

…Complainant

AND:

1)M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance  Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director, Corporate Claims Dept.,

Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46 Whites Road, Chennai-14.

2) M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance  Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager, Parvathaneni Hills,

CBM Compound, Waltair Up Lands, Visakhapatnam-03.

…Opposite Parties

 

This case coming on 29-07-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of                 SRI I.SANTHA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant, and of SRI K.SAILESH PRASAD, Advocate for the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

 (As per SRI H.ANANDA RAO, the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)                                                                              

1. The Complainant filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties, directing them to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards cost of the repairs with interest @ 18% p.a.,  from the date of accident i.e., 27-11-2011 till the date of realization, Rs.2,00,000/-  towards compensation with costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he insured his Lorry bearing No.         AP 30W 4599 and obtained a valid and effective Comprehensive Insurance Policy with coverage from 24-06-2011 to 23-06-2012 midnight and the complainant is the owner cum driver of the said lorry and on 27-11-2011 while he was driving the said lorry with cement load to go to Berhampur Village dashed against a stationed lorry, AP 24 TA 4288 which was wrongly parked on NH 16 near Arinama Akkivalasa, Etcherla Mandalm, Srikakulam District  and immediate to the accident intimated to the OP informing the damages who inturn deputed a surveyor and he prepared his report without making proper enquiry and he got the vehicle repaired at Vijayawada and paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and approached OPs for claim by submitting the bills and OPs informed him that they were not able to entertain the claim.  Though he got issued Lawyer’s Notice, OP1 who gave no reply, the denial of his claim by OP1 amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.
3. The case of OP, denying the material allegations of the complaint is that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose as such the complaint is not maintainable and as per the survey report, there is a doubt on the person who was driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and on further inspection by the surveyor, it is proved that the vehicle was driven by one Cleaner Mr.Linga Raju as a result, he sustained injuries.  The said vehicle owner cum driver was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the driver was not having valid driving license. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is undisputedly unsustainable under law. It is further submitted that the maximum liability of the OPs would not exceed a sum of Rs.1,58,000/- as per the report of the surveyor and therefore, the claim of the complainant for Rs.2,50,000/- is untenable. The issues involved in the present complaint required a full-fledged trial by the Civil Court and the same cannot be decided by summary procedure.
4. To prove the case of the complaint, she filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A9 and on the other hand, on behalf of the OPs, they filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Exhibits B1 to B6.
5. Exhibit A1 is the Policy Schedule and Certificate of Insurance, dated 24-06-2011, Exhibit A2 is the FIR, dated 27-11-2011, Exhibit A3 is the Regd., Notice Copy, dated 05-03-2012, Exhibit A4 is the Ack. & Postal Receipt, dated 09-03-2012, Exhibit A5 is the Letter of 1^st OP, dated 03-01-2012, Exhibit A6 is the Lokadalath Order copy, dated 19-03-2012, Exhibit A7 is the Ration Card, Exhibit A8 is the Driving License and Exhibit A9 is the Final Assessment.
6. Exhibit B1 is the Policy Schedule, Exhibit B2 is the Motor Insurance Claim Form, Exhibit B3 is the Preliminary Survey Report, Exhibit B4 is the Investigation Report, Exhibit B5 is the Letter dated 27-11-2011 and Exhibit B6 are the photos.
7. Both Parties filed their written arguments.

8.  Heard oral arguments from both sides.

9.  Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

10. As seen from the record, it is not in dispute that the complainant herein purchased a lorry bearing No.AP 30W 4599 by obtaining finance from OP 1 and obtained valid and effective comprehensive Insurance Policy from OPs and an accident took place on 27-11-2011 at about 1.a.m., on NH 16 Road Near Etcherla, Srikakulam District and the police registered the case basing on the report as crime No.277/11 and the said C.C. compounded before the Lok Adalath at Srikakulam and immediate to the accident, a surveyor was appointed by OP and he gave his report by assessing the value of Rs.1,58,000/- as net liability.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

11.  The first contention of the OP is that the complainant is not a driver of the lorry in question at the time of accident. The Cleaner, Mr.Linga Raju is driving the vehicle. In order to prove the complainant himself was the driver of the vehicle, he relied upon Exhibit A2, the FIR and A6 Lok Adalath  order copy and Exhibit A8 is the driving license. On a careful perusal of FIR, it is evident that on receipt of the complaint about the accident, the crime was registered against the person complainant herein showing driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. To rebut the same, except the preliminary survey report vide Exhibit B3 and investigation report vide Exhibit B4, nothing could be filed by OP. Exhibit B3 and B4 discloses immediate to the accident, the OP appointed a surveyor who conducted the survey and presented the report. On the other hand, Exhibit A2 and A6 clearly and categorically goes to show during the course of the investigation, the investigating officer on receipt of complaint, not only registered the case but also investigation into and filed charge sheet against the present complaint herein showing as accused. Therefore, Exhibit B3 and B4 cannot be relied upon. On a careful perusal of the evidence of the complainant much less A2 and A6, we are of the considered view that the complainant established his case that he was the driver of the lorry at the time of accident. For these reasons, the contention of the learned counsel for the OP has no legs to stand.

12. The next contention of the OP is that the complainant has not filed the original bills showing the damages occurred for a tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and further contended that as per the survey report who assessed the damages for sum of Rs.1,58,000/- only vide Exhibit B4. Admittedly, the complainant has not filed the original bills, the reasons explained by the complainant in respect of non filing of the bills are not satisfactory. It is not the case of OP that the vehicle lorry was not damaged due to the accident. Their case is only at the time of accident, the complainant is not a driver of the vehicle which is already answered in the above paragraphs. Since the OP admitted the damaged cost to the vehicle and their investigation report vide Exhibit  B4 shows it was assessed to Rs.1,58,000/-.  It was not paid in spite of registered notice got issued by the complainant. For the reasons, we are of the considered view that the OP is liable to pay the same to the complainant. On scrutiny of the evidence, it is further evident that that acts of the OP amounts to clear deficiency of service on their part. For all these reasons, the claim of the complainant deserves to be allowed.

13.  Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion is, what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 24% p.a.  This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive.  Of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A1 is commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is licensed to claim interest @ 24% p.a., But at the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix the rate of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of registration of the complainant.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

14. Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00, 000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is an un-disputed fact that the Opposite Parties did not pay cost of repair charges to the complainant.   Naturally, that might have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 20,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.20,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

15.  Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainants ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for payment of Rs.2,50,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.  In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum             of Rs.2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

16. In the light of our discussion, referred supra, the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,58,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of registration of Complainant till the date of realization, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.2,500/-.

17.  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,58,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand only) together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of accident i.e., 27-11-2011 till the date of realization, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant. Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

       Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 31^st day of July, 2015.      

 Sd/-                                                 Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                              MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT  

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1	24-06-2011	Royal Sundaram Policy Schedule and Certificate of insurance	Photocopy
A2	27-11-2011	FIR	Photocopy
A3	05-03-2012	Regd., Legal Notice	Office copy
A4	09-03-2012	Ack. & and Postal Receipt	Original
A5	03-01-2012	Letter of 1st OP	Original
A6	19-03-2012	Lok Adalath Order copy	Photocopy
A7		Ration Card	Photocopy
A8		Driving Licence	Photocopy
A9		Final Assessment	Photocoyp

For the Opposite Parties:-  

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1		Policy Schedule	Photocopy
B2		Motor Insurance Claim Form	Photocopy
B3		Preliminary Survey Report	Photocopy
B4		Investigation Report	Photocopy
B5		Letter	Photocopy
B6		Photos	Photocopies

 

Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                              MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT