STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

                                                      FA 473 of 2017

                                                   AGAINST

                 CC No. 792 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM III, HYDERABAD

Between :

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd.

 Unit No.24, Jade Arcade, 1-7-284/293,

 M.G.Road, Paradise Circle,

Secunderabad – 500 003.

Rep. by its legal head Mr. Piyush Shanker  …       Appellant/Opposite Party

And

M/s.Raja Rajeshwari Minerals Pvt.Ltd.

, Rep. by its Managing Director,

 CH.Sunitha, W/o.Ch.Sudarshan,

H.No.4-9-602, Plot No.32,

Vinayaka Nagar Colony,

 Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District,                      Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                  :         Sri K. Madhusudhan Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent               :         Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta

Coram                :

                 Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla         …      President

                                           And

                          Sri Patil Vithal Rao              …      Member

                          Tuesday, the Twentieth Day of February

                                  Two Thousand Eighteen

Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            ***

1)       This is an appeal  filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the  opposite party   praying this Commission  to set aside the  impugned order dated 09.11.2015 CC   792 of 2013 on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM III, Hyderabad.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3).      The case of the complainant,  in brief, is that  she insured her Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No. AP 29 TA 8609 vide policy bearing No. 2315/50729666/02/000 valid for the period from 09.06.2012 till 08.06.2013 with the opposite party and it met with an accident on 05.10.2012 and the same was informed to  insurer immediately. A surveyor was appointed, who, inspected the spot of the accident and the vehicle  and submitted a report  estimating the loss at Rs.8,10,200/-.  The vehicle was taken to a workshop. At request, they submitted the license of the driver and other documents on 02.04.2013. She used to earn  a sum of Rs.50,000/- p.m. from plying the vehicle. But the claim was not yet settled which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party Insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.8,10,200/- towards repair charges of the vehicle, Rs. 6 lakhs towards  loss of income from 5.12.2012 to 24.10.2013, Rs. One lakhs towards mental agony and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

4).      The opposite party having entered appearance through counsel  did not file any written version  and refute the claim of the complainant.

5).      During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her   case, the complainant   filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-8 and she also filed written arguments.

6)       The District Forum, after considering the material available on record,  directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 8,10,200/- towards claim of the complainant , Rs. One lakh towards compensation and loss of earnings and Rs.2,000/- within one month, failing which, the above sums shall carry interest @ 9% pa from 01.01.2016 till realization.

7)       Aggrieved by the said order, the  opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.

8).      Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments.    Heard both sides. 

9)       The points that arise for consideration are,

(i)       Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii)      To what relief ?

10).   Point No.1 :

There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant insured her Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No. AP 29 TA 8609 vide policy bearing No. 2315/50729666/02/000 valid for the period from 09.06.2012 till 08.06.2013 with the opposite party and it met with an accident on 05.10.2012 and the same was insurer immediately. A surveyor was appointed, who, inspected the spot of the accident and the vehicle. The damage caused to the vehicle  was estimated at Rs.8,10,200/-.

11).    The appellant/opposite party insurance company though appeared through  their counsel but did not contest the matter.

12)     The District Forum opined that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party on the ground that it did not settle the issue though the respondent/complainant furnished the requisite documents and also did not contest before the District Forum though made appearance through their advocate and hence awarded the estimation made by Laxmi Vigneswara Body Building works vide Ex.A5.

13).    The contention of the appellant/opposite party insurance company before this Commission  is that the District Forum failed to appreciate that  the respondent/complainant has not filed any original bill in respect of the repairs and also no estimation in original was filed. Further they  have pointed out that the respondent/complainant  on 02.04.2013 intimated that one Nagaraju was the driver at the time of accident but as per the record Mr. Battula Adinarayana was the driver. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant rebutted the same contended that though he furnished the required documents on 2.4.2013  but the appellant corporation did not settle the claim  despite lapse of more than six months and hence he filed the complaint. But, it is not known as to why the appellant Insurance Company did not contest the same before the District Forum. Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company further argued that after the claim made by the respondent/complainant their surveyor investigated the issue. When they have appointed a surveyor, he will submit his investigation report estimating the loss that caused to the damaged vehicle but they did not disclose their own report. Further, he can also enquire mechanics of   Sri Laxmi Vigneshwara Body Building works, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad and can be able to make his own assessment. As per the information available on record, the respondent/complainant furnished the driving licence of the driver as desired. If the appellant Insurance company has any doubt with regard to repairs and estimation given by the repairer, they can summon him through the District Forum and find out the correctness of the estimation. In fact, they have to prove that the estimation is wrong.   Without taking any steps to prove that the estimation is wrong, non-settlement of the claim on the ground of  non-supply of documents amounts to deficiency in service. Without settlement, they made the vehicle idle. Hence the District Forum awarded the estimated amount. Since the appellant/Insurance company failed to prove that the estimation is fabricated, we have no option except to accept the version of the respondent/complainant and support the impugned order.

14).    Point No. 2 :

In the result, the appeal is dismissed  confirming   the impugned order dated 09.11.2015 in CC   792 of 2013 passed by the District Forum III, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                            PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                                           Dated :  20.02.2018..