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
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 1st day of July, 2011
C.C.No.70 /10
Between:
G.Venkat Reddy, S/o G.Chandra Reddy,
Presently residing at D.No.68/2, Mullam Peta, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. M/s. Unite India Insurance Company Limited,
D.A.B 5th Floor,Bashirbhag, Hyderabad.
2. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited,Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
Mourya Inn complex, Ballari Road, Kurnool.
...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri S.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.70/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties:-
- To settle the claim of the complainant arisen out of the policy bearing No.051504/31/07/01/00000480;
(b) To award a sum of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant;
(c) To award cost of the complainant;
- To such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP29 T 7145. The said vehicle is insured with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is carrying its business through opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 issued insurance policy bearing No.051504/31/07/01/00000480 in favour of the complainant. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Marripadu Village situated Kadapa Nellore High Way on 29-12-2007. The vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the said accident. The complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties. The opposite party deputed spot surveyor. Later the complainant brought his vehicle to Nandyal and got it repaired by incurring expenditure of more than Rs.3,00,000/-. Later the complainant requested the opposite party to appoint final surveyor. Inspite of several demands opposite parties have not appointed final surveyor. The opposite parties advised the complainant to appoint a local surveyor and send the report. Accordingly the complainant approached Mahaboob Hussein and he conducted the final survey. He recommended for payment of Rs.1,20,000/-. Inspite of several demands the opposite parties not settle the claim. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written versions separately stating that opposite party No.1 issued the policy in favour of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the insured informed about the accident immediately to the opposite parties. The complainant did not give immediate information about the accident to the opposite parties. After getting information about the accident opposite party No.1 appointed a spot surveyor. Subsequently the complainant did not produce the vehicle to conduct final survey. In spite of letter dated 03-07-2008 by opposite party No.1 the complainant failed to produce the vehicle and required documents for settlement of claim. Finally on 12-08-2008 opposite party No.1 issued claim closer letter to the complainant. The complainant filed the present complaint without giving any legal notice. The alleged accident occurred on 29-12-2007 and the present complaint is barred by time. The alleged accident occurred at Marripadu in Nellore District. The policy was issued by opposite party No.1 at Hyderabad. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 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 the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B4 are marked and sworn affidavits of the opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint?
- To what relief?
7. POINT No.1:- Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant bearing No.AP29 T 7145 was insured with opposite party No.1 under policy bearing No.051504/31/07/01/00000480. Ex.A1 is the policy issued by opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 29-12-2007 near Marripadu in Nellore District. The complainant filed Ex.A2 copy of the F.I.R., in Crime No.76/2007 of Marripadu Police Station. It is mentioned in Ex.A2 that the vehicle bearing No.AP29 T 7145 was damaged in the accident that occurred on 29-12-2007. The complainant also in his sworn affidavit stated about the damage of his vehicle in the accident that took place on 29-12-2007. Admittedly after receiving the intimation about the accident opposite party No.1 appointed a spot surveyor who filed his report Ex.A3. It is also the case of the complainant that he got his vehicle repaired and that opposite party No.1 did not appoint final surveyor to assess the loss. According to opposite party No.1 the complainant did not produce the vehicle for final survey inspite of several demands. The complainant did not place any documentary evidence to show that opposite party No.1 not appointed surveyor for conducting final survey inspite of several demands. The complainant not filed any document to show that he demanded the Opposite party No.1 to appoint final surveyor. Admittedly no written notice was given by the complainant to opposite party No.1 requesting to appoint a final surveyor. Opposite party No.1 issued Ex.B1 letter dated 03-07-2008 asking the complainant to inform whether his vehicle was repaired or not. The complainant did not give any reply. As there was no reply from the complainant, opposite party No.1 rightly closed the claim of the complainant and intimated the same to the complainant through a letter Ex.B2 dated 12-08-2008. There is no material on record to show that opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to appoint a local surveyor for final survey. As seen from the evidence available on record it is very clear that the complainant inspite of written demand made by the opposite party No.1 did not produce the vehicle for final survey. Opposite party No.1 closed the claim as the complainant did not extend his cooperation to make final survey. No laches are found on the part of opposite party No.1. It is not shown by the complainant that opposite party No.1 was negligent in settling the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.
8. It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complaint can be filed in District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party carries on business or in the District Forum where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Admittedly the Opposite party No.1 is carrying on its business at Hyderabad. Opposite party No.1 issued the policy Ex.A1 where in it is mentioned that the complainant is residing in HCL Colony, Uppal, R.R.District. It is not the case of the complainant that EX.A1 policy was processed through opposite party No.2. Merely because the branch office of United India Insurance Company is situated in Kurnool Town the complainant is not entitled to file the complaint in this Forum. No cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Kurnool. The expression branch office in the amended Section 11 of the Act would mean the Branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Admittedly the policy was issued to the complainant by opposite party No.1 having its office in Hyderabad. According to the complainant the accident took place near Marripadu in Nellore District. The part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Nellore. The complainant ought to have presented the complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Nellore or at Hyderabad. As no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum Kurnool, the present complaint is not maintainable.
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 1st day of July, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Insurance policy No.051504/31/07/01/00000480,
of vehicle NO.AP-29-T-7145.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of FIR No.76/2007 dated 29-12-2007 of Marripadu, P.S. Nellore District.
Ex.A3 Motor survey spot report of B.A.Samad Khan
dated 20-02-2008.
Ex.A4 Motor survey report of P.S. Mahaboob Hussian, of AP29T7145 L.M.V. Maxi cab, dated 14-03-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Letter dated 03-07-2008 issued by opposite party No.1
to complainant.
Ex.B2 Letter dated 12-8-2008 issued by opposite party No.1
to complainant.
Ex.B3 Postal receipt.
Ex.B4 Insurance policy No.051504/31/07/01/00000480, of vehicle No.AP-29-T-7145, along with terms and conditions.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// 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 :
