Smt. Hanumanthu Vijaya ,W/o, late Krishnaiah ,R/o.H.No.1-38,1,2,3 Blocks ,Kamanchikal Village ,Khammam Mandal and District. - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,rep by its Regional Manager ,Regd& Head Office ,GE - Opp.Party(s)
27 Jul 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/40
Smt. Hanumanthu Vijaya ,W/o, late Krishnaiah ,R/o.H.No.1-38,1,2,3 Blocks ,Kamanchikal Village ,Khammam Mandal and District.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,rep by its Regional Manager ,Regd& Head Office ,GE Plaza ,Air port ,Yerawada,Pune-411 006 .Maharastra.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C.No.40/2010 Between: . Smt.Hanumanthu Vijaya, w/o.late Krishnaiah, age: 50 years, occu:House hold, r/o.H.No.1-38, 1,2,3 blocks, Kamanchikal village, Khammam rural mandal, Khammam District. Complainant and M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Regional Manager, Regd. & Head Office, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 411 006. Opposite party This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Madhava Rao, Advocate for complainant; notice of opposite party served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of car bearing temporary registration No.AP 09 TI-TR-4288 (Chasis No.MA3FKEB1S00449226G9 and engine No. D13A1255986) vide policy No.BA5062406 valid from 12-8-2009 to 11-8-2010. The son of the complainant had been to Shimoga town of Karnataka state on his personal work. Unfortunately on 30-12-2009 at about 8.30 p.m. while the son of the complainant proceeding from Gopala bus stop to Sagar Road, the car met with an accident, when he was trying to avert a two wheeler. Consequently the car of the complainant hit a roadside electric pole resulting in heavy damage to the car. Immediately the complainant lodged a report with the police, Traffic police station, Shimoga in Cr.No.275/2009 u/s.279 IPC. As the complainant was in need of the vehicle, she got repaired the vehicle by spending an amount of Rs.57,542/- at Shruthi Motors, Shankarmutt Road, informing about the accident and submitted all relevant documents to the opposite party on 31-12-2009, which was registered by the opposite party vide registered docket claim No.OC-10-1702-1801-00000718. Thereafter on 26-1-2010 the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant by repudiating her claim on the ground that the temporary registration was elapsed by 10-9-2009 and also wrongly mentioned the policy number and also the vehicle number, it speaks about the callousness on the part of opposite party. As per the stipulations mentioned in the policy there is no such clause to reject the claim. In fact the complainant could not be able to get permanent registration number, due to the rush of work. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, there is no mention as to the alleged ground urged by the opposite party. In order to evade the claim of the complainant, the opposite party had created flimsy ground and sent a letter on 26-1-2010, which is not maintainable. As such the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony. Hence the complaint. On presentation of the complaint, a notice is ordered for the appearance of opposite party. The same was served on opposite party on 28-5-2010. The case was posted on 7-6-2010 for the appearance of opposite party. On that day, though the notice was served on opposite party, it called absent. Again the matter is adjourned to 6-7-2010. Even on that date also, the opposite party called absent. Again the matter is adjourned to 16-7-2010. Even on that date also there was no representation from opposite party side. Hence, the matter is treated as heard from both sides. Apart from the complaint, the complainant also filed an affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint along with the following documents. i) Xerox copy of Insurance policy issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant, dt.12-8-2009. ii) Xerox copy of temporary tax receipt issued by Transport Department, dt.12-8-2009 iii) Xerox copy of temporary registration certificate, dt.12-8-2009 iv) True copy of FIR in Cr.No.275/2009 u/s.279 IPC of P.S. Traffic Police Station, Shimoga, Karnataka State. v) Repudiation letter issued by the opposite party, dt.26-1-2010 vi) Bills Nos.5, for Rs.57,542/- issued by Shruthi motors, Shankarmatt Road, Shimoga, dt.16-2-2010. Among the aforesaid documents, the repudiation letter, dt.26-1-2010 issued by the opposite party is an important document. In the said letter the opposite party informed to the complainant that the damage to the vehicle was not tallying to the cause narrated in the claim form and further informed that the said car was driven without registration at the material time of accident, this is violation of motor vehicle Act 1988 Section 39 termed as No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place, unless the vehicle is registered. On this ground only the opposite party has repudiated the claim. In support of her contention, the complainant has filed certificate cum policy schedule and tax receipt and temporary certificate of registration and F.I.R. issued by Shimoga police station and the complaint given to the S.I. of police, Traffic P.S., Shimoga. Among the aforesaid documents, Shruthi Motors, Authorised Dealers for Maruthi Suzuki India Limited, Shankarmutt Road, Shimoga-577 201 is an important and relevant document in respect of damages caused to the car. According to which Shruthi Motors has estimated the damage caused for Rs.57,542/-. Inspite of availing number of opportunity, the opposite party did not care to appear before the Forum to represent the case. It is for the opposite party to establish that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the owner of temporary registration is not entitled to the claim of the damages caused to the vehicle. On this aspect of the case, no proof is filed before the Forum to disentitle the complainant from making the claim. The ground taken in the letter, dt.26-1-2010 addressed by the opposite party is not within the purview of opposite party. It is for the motor vehicle authority to take action. Therefore, the opposite party has taken a flimsy ground by repudiating the claim of the complainant, which is unjust. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is allowed in part. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.57,542/- (Rupees fifty seven thousand, five hundred and forty two only) spent by the complainant towards repair charges of the damage caused to the vehicle together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of filing of complaint of complaint till the date of deposit and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards pain and suffering and mental agony. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 27th day of July, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE -Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
