BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Thursday the 08th day of July, 2010
C.C.No 84/09
Between:
Mr.Palakshi Reddy, S/o. Hanumanth Reddy, Proprietor of M/s. Datta Borewells,
D.No.9/632/55, J.R.S.Colony, Raidurg, Anantapur District-515 865. …..Complainant
-Vs-
1. M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager,
Kurnool-518 001.
2. M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager,
P.B.No. 59, Mayura Complex, Railway Feeder Road, Anantapur-515 001. …Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate for complainant , and Sri. V.Victor Augustine, Advocate for OP.No.1 and OP.No.2 called absent set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C C. No. 84/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OP
(i) to pay damages of Rs.8,76,003/- as estimated by its surveyor .
(ii) to grant interest of Rs.5,67,064/- @ 12% p.a from 14-10-2003 to 06-03-2009
(iii) to grant future interest at 12% p.a from the date of filing application till the realization .
(iv) to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/-
(iv) to grant costs of the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is the owner of drilling rig bearing No. AP.02K.0558 . The said vehicle is insured with the OP under the policy bearing No. 432407/MV/2003/2759. On 14-10-2003 the said vehicle was damaged by known culprits . The complainant informed about the damage of the vehicle to the Ops and also submitted claim forms to the Ops . The surveyor appointed by the Ops assessed the damage. The complainant demanded the Ops to settle the claim but the Ops delayed the settlement of claim of the complainant . Finally on 10-09-2007 the Ops sent a letter repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the bills for Rs.1,36,277/- given by Pioneer automobiles and Rafee brothers are fake .The bills submitted by the complainant have no effect in settling the claim by the Ops as the surveyor appointed by the Ops assessed the damaged. The repudiation of the claim by the OPs is not as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The surveyor appointed estimated the loss at Rs.8,76,003/- . There is abnormal delay in repudiating the claim. The Ops are liable to pay interest at 12% p.a from 14-12-2003 till the date of realization.
3. The OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is put to strict proof that he is a registered owner of the drilling rig No. AP.02K.0558 and the said vehicle is insured with the OP and that the vehicle was damaged by known culprits on 14-10-2003. On investigation it is disclosed that the complainant submitted fake bills to a tune of Rs.1,36,277/- . In case where the vehicle sustained damages an established procedure ought to be followed strictly. The final survey report along with photos must be submitted to the insurance company. Basing on the spot survey and final survey the claim will be settled. In the instant case the complainant has not provided the report of the insurance surveyor along with documents like repair estimate , FIR and final bills. As such the surveyor could not assess the loss correctly. The amount claimed by the complainant is excessive. The complainant made an attempt to gain wrongful from the OP . The OP rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant . There is no deficiency of service in settlement of the claim . The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of OP Ex.B1 and B7 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.1 and Satyadev Goud is filed.
5. Both parties filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Points1 & 2:- Admittedly the drilling rig bearing No. AP.02K.0558 is insured with the OP under the policy bearing No. 432407/MV/ 2003/2759. It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the said vehicle and it was damaged on 14-10-2003 by known culprits. The complainant has not chosen to file registration certificate to show that he is the owner of the said vehicle. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of the OP.No.1 it is admitted in para No. 3 that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP.02K.0558 . It is also admitted that the complainant and OP.No.2 are parties to the contract of insurance . The complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of the FIR in Cr.No.119/03 of Nandyal , III town police station . In the said report it is mentioned that the drilling rig with bearing No. AP.02K.0558 was damaged by B. Sreenivasulu Reddy and his followers on 14-10-2003 . On behalf of the Ops Ex.B2 investigation report is filed . The investigator in his report stated about the damage of the vehicle belonging to the complainant . From the evidence on record it is very clear that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP. 02K. 0558 and the same was damaged on
14-10-2003 . It is also admitted by the Ops that the said vehicle was covered by insurance policy by the date of the accident.
8. Admittedly after the accident the complainant submitted claim form to the Ops and it was repudiated by the Ops on 10-09-2007 stating that the complainant filed two fake bills for Rs.1,36,277/- . Ex.B5 and B6 are the copies of the bills produced by the complainant . It is the case of the complainant that Ex.B5 and B6 bills were produced by him and that they are genuine . The Ops relied on Ex.B2 investigation report of Satyadev Goud to show that Ex.B5 and Ex.B6 bills are not genuine. In Ex.B2 investigation report of Satyadev Goud it is mentioned that the cash bill dated 19-02-2004 in the name of Pioneer automobiles is false. It is also mentioned that the cash bill standing in the name of S. Rafi and brothers is found to be false. As already stated the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that the complainant produced fake bills. It is not the case of the Ops that the complainant obtained the insurance policy by suppressing the facts. If the insured obtains policy by suppressing material facts , the insurance company can rightly repudiate the claim . Merely because the complainant submitted two fake bills , the Ops cannot escape their liability . The leaned counsel appearing for the OP relied on condition No. 8 mentioned in Ex.B7 copy of insurance policy . The said condition relates to the proposal of the insured at the time of entering into the contract to obtain insurance policy. Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant was damaged by the known culprits on 14-10-2003 . The policy was inforce by the date of the said incident. The Ops are liable to indemnify the loss sustained by the complainant . The complainant has claimed damages of Rs.8,76,003/-. The complainant relied on Ex.A4 surveyors report dated 27-11-04 . The said report was submitted by the surveyor of the insurance company. The surveyor after visiting the damaged vehicle came to the conclusion that the loss sustained by the complainant was Rs.8,76,003/- . He came to the said conclusion basing on the final bills on repair basis. As already stated the surveyor was appointed by the insurance company. Now the ops cannot say that they are not liable to pay Rs.8,76,003/- to the complainant . The repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Ops is not based on sound reasons. Merely because some bills submitted by the complainant are found to fake , the Ops cannot escape their liability. As seen from the final report of the surveyor it is very clear that the policy was inforce by the date of the damage of the vehicle. The surveyor appointed by insurance company estimated the damage at Rs.8,76,003/-. The Ops inspite of several demands made by the complainant have not chosen to settle the claim . There is deficiency of service on the part the Ops and they are liable to pay Rs.8,76,003/- with interest.
9.Point No:3- In the result , the complaint is partly allowed directing the Ops jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.8,76,003/- and costs of Rs.500/- with interest at 9% p.a from the date of repudiation of the claim i.,e 10-09-2007 till the date of payment .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her ,corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 08th day of July , 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.119/03 of Nandayal III town P.S(6 papers).
Ex.A2. Repudiation letter dt.10-09-2007..
Ex.A3. Photo copy of Preliminary surveyor Report dt.28-10-03
(17 papers).
Ex.A4. Photo copy Final surveyor report dt.27-11-2004
(21 papers).
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Photo copy of Letter dt.13-01-2006 appointing Sri Satya Deva Goud as investigator of Oriental insurance Co., Regional Office, Hyderabad.
Ex.B2. Photo copy of Investigation Report dt.18-01-2006 submitted by Satya Deva Goud, Advocate Investigator, Hyderabad.
Ex.B3. Photo copy of Letter dt.08-06-2010 of Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Kurnool to the Commercial Tax Officer, Begum Bazar Division, Hyderabad.
Ex.B4. Reply Proceedings of the Public Information Officer and Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Begum Bazar Division, Hyd dt.14-06-2010 Under RTI Act addressed to Divisional manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Kurnool.
Ex.B5. Photo copy of Cash bill of pioneer Automobiles, Hyd dt.
19-02-2004.
Ex.B6. Photo copy of Cash Bill of S.Rafi and Brother, Lorry Body Built Works, Hyd dt.19-02-2004.
Ex.B7. Commercial Vehicles Package Policy with conditions of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
