Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

cc/16/2013

Chowdary Brothers represented by its managing Partner P.Ravikumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s The Oriental Insurance co ltdRepd,by its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

S.V.S.S.Durgaprasad

04 Jun 2015

ORDER

Date of filing      : 28-12-2012

Date of Disposal : 04-06-2015  

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                                     

Thursday, this the 4th day of JUNE, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri P.V.Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                                      Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, Member

                             

                      C.C.No.16/2013

 

Chowdary brothers, represented by its

Managing Partner P.Ravikumar, age 45 years,

Resident of 5/484, Usmansahebpet,

Nellore.                                                                             …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

M/s.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Seshadri complex, Dargamitta, Nellore.                            … Opposite party

 

This matter coming on  29-04-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.V.V.S.S.D.Prasad Rao, Advocate for the complainant and  Sri M.Ravindra Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI P.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

 

1.          The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

 

      The complainant is doing business in transporting HPCL products through their truck.  The complainant also has out let near Saibaba temple on the highway at Kovur.  The lorry of the complainant, AP-27WU 8036 was insured with the opposite party on 13-08-2009, the vehicle was involved in a motor accident with another vehicle No.TN-04-AP-6418.  The vehicle was damaged and police case was filed.   In this connection, the opposite party paid the damages for the vehicle but failed to pay the charges of 4 K.Litre diesel,  worth Rs.1,40,475/- .  The same is a deficiency of service.    Hence, the complaint for payment of the above amount with costs and compensation.        

 

2.   The brief averments of the counter of the opposite party are as follows:

      The complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations made in the complaint are not correct.    The complainant is doing business in selling diesel and petrol.  The complainant is not a consumer.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case.  There was no leakage of diesel from the tanker.  The vehicle was covered by carriers’ legal liability insurance.  The complainant has not produced loss incurred evidence from the HPCL.  Hence the claim was not settled, as no claim. Without producing the loss certificate, the complainant filed this case in this Forum.   There is no deficiency of service.    Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

 

3. Now the point for consideration is whether the opposite party committed any deficiency of service? 

 

4.  The Managing partner of the complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A5.  On behalf of the opposite parties, no evidence was adduced.

 

5. POINT:     The complainant is an agent of Hindustan Petroleum Company, dealing in petrol, diesel and other products.  The vehicle in which diesel was being transported met with an accident on 12-08-2009.  The complainant alleged that in that accident diesel worth Rs.1,40,475/- was lost due to leakage.  The complainant alleged further, that the opposite party paid for the damages to the vehicle and did not pay for the loss of the diesel.  The complaint is for refund of the value of the loss of the diesel.  The opposite party averred that it insisted the complainant to produce the certificate of loss issued by HPCL, the competent authority.  The opposite party averred that the claim was closed for want of production of certificate as insisted by it and that there is no deficiency of service.

 

6. In Ex.A1, the opposite party informed the complainant that since he failed to produce the loss incurred from HPCL, the claim was closed.  The other documents filed by the complainant are not necessary to settle the claim.  The opposite party wanted the complainant to file the document for settling his claim.  The complainant is only a dealer.  The supplier of the diesel is HPCL.  Therefore, there is reason for the opposite party in insisting a certificate to that effect.  The deficiency of service arises if the opposite party rejected the claim after production of such certificate by the complainant.  The complainant has not provided the opportunity to the opposite party to examine the claim, by not producing the document which the opposite party insisted.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service.  Since there is no deficiency of service and that the case can be disposed on that ground alone, this Forum is not going into the other legal contentions raised by the opposite party.  The closure of the case is legal. The complainant is not entitled to the amount.  The point is held accordingly.

 

7.  In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without costs.

 

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 4th day of JUNE, 2015.    

 

 

            MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

1-7-2014

:

P.Ravikumar, Managing Partner of Chowdary Brothers, Hindu, aged about   years, residing at 5/484, Usmansahebpet, Nellore-2.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

NIL -

                                                                               

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	08-02-2011	:	Letter addressed by the opposite party Insurance company to the complainant.
Ex.A2	-	:	Photostat copies of the bills, etc.
Ex.A3	31-07-2007	:	Photostat copies of certificate of registration, Form-38, Form PPC, certificate of verification and Form XI belongs to vehicle No.AP-27W-8036.
Ex.A4	15-08-2009	:	Photostat copies of FIR in crime No.93/09 of Gudluru P.S., Prakasam District, Annexure – Victim details and application.
Ex.A5	30-03-2012	:	Photostat copy of partnership deed.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:                    

 

                                          -NIL -

                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

Copies to :

1. Sri S.V.V.S.S.Durga Prasad Rao,

Advocate, 31/425, A.C.Nagar,

Nellore.

 

2. M.Ravindra Reddy,

Advocate, Plot No.18, Shanthi Nagar,

Nellore.