BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1079/2013 against C.C.No.9/2012 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Having its registered office at A-25/27
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Branch at
302, 3rd floor, Oasis Plaza, Tilak Road,
Abids, Hyderabad, represented by its
Manager. Appellant/O.P
And
M/s Rajkamal Transport
Represented by its Managing Partner
Sri DH Joshi office at 2nd floor
Maithri Arcade, D.No.2-3-42/52/1
M.G.Road, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Bhaskar Poluri
Counsel for the Respondent:M/s Asif Pasha.
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalaKrishna Tamada, President)
***
The opposite party is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the orders dated 28-11-2012 in C.C.No.09/2012 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad whereby the complaint of the respondent herein i.e. complainant was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,03,803/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of motor claim till realization together with costs of Rs.3000/-.
The brief facts are that the respondent/complainant owned several vehicles in the name and style of “Rajkamal Transport” and also owner of goods vehicle bearing Registration No.AP10V9675. The said vehicle was registered as heavy goods vehicle and it engaged the said vehicle for transporting goods from one place to another and also insured the same with the appellant insurance company vide Policy bearing No.431100/31/2011/21199 valid from 26-2-2011 to 25-2-2012.
The vehicle with goods to be transported to Drongairi, Mumbai met with an accident at Basavakalyan, Karnataka on 06-3-2011 when the driver lost control and hit a road side at Tadola village and an F.I.R. was registered as 35/2011 dated 06-3-2011 U/s.279, 338 and 304A. The assistant cleaner died on the spot and the driver received multiple grevious injuries and died thereafter and the vehicle was extensively damaged in the accident. The complainant got repaired the vehicle by incurring an expenditure of Rs.5,03,803/- and applied to the opposite party for reimbursement of the amount but the opposite party failed to pay the said amount. Alleging that the said act amounts to deficiency in service, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming an amount of Rs.5,03,803/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 6-3-2011 till payment and costs.
Opposite party resisted the complaint. It admitted that the complainant, M/s Rajkamal Transport, obtained a Motor Insurance Policy for its transport lorry bearing No. AP 10V 9675 and the insurance is valid from 26-2-2011 to 25-2-2012 for a total amount of Rs.9,39,474/-. On receipt of information through e-mail that the lorry bearing No.AP 10 V 9675 of the complainant met with an accident at Basavakalyan, Karnataka on 06-3-2011 and on perusal of the FIR of Basava Kalyan Traffic Police Station, it came to know that the driver of the said lorry drove it in a very high speed carelessly and negligently without taking into consideration road condition and dashed the vehicle to a tree due to which the driver Mr.Kandesha sustained grevious injuries and died on the spot and the opposite party contended that its liability ended when the vehicle driver drove the vehicle at high speed and was negligent. The opposite party further contended that after receipt of spot investigation report it appointed M/s VKG Engineers to investigate on the cause of accident and the complainant was also requested to approach M/s VKG Engineers and though M/s VKG Engineers was in constant follow up, the complainant failed to co-operate with the surveyor in assessing and investigating the accident and due to non co-operation of the complainant, it could not settle the claim nor repudiate the same and in the meanwhile the complainant approached the District Forum and submitted that the complaint does not deserve any consideration.
During the course of enquiry, the complainant marked Exs.A1 to A11 and having examined the entire material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,03,803/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of motor claim till realization together with costs of Rs.3000/-.
As stated supra, the said order is challenged by the insurance company i.e. opposite party.
Heard both counsel.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is mandatory for the respondent/complainant to co-operate with the surveyor even as per the Regulations of IRDA for assessment of the damages to the vehicle and requested this Commission to take into consideration the surveyor’s report as additional evidence.
On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no objection, if the surveyor’s report is taken into consideration and accordingly F.A.I.A.No.2510/2013 to receive surveyor’s report as additional evidence is ordered and surveyor’s report is marked as Ex.B1.
In the light of the surveyor’s report, as depreciation was not taken into consideration by the District Forum while awarding the amount and as the surveyor has arrived at a net loss of Rs.2,93,803/- after deducting depreciation and both the counsel agreed for the amount assessed by the surveyor, we modify the order of the District Forum and reduce the amount granted from Rs.5,03,803/ to Rs.2,93,803 while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified by reducing the awarded amount from Rs.5,03,803/- to Rs.2,93,803/- while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.23-6-2014.
