BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member, PRESIDENT (FAC)

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Tuesday the 30^th day of April, 2013

C.C.No.75/2012

Between:

V.Sadguru Murthy, S/o V.Pullaiah,

H.No.30/661, R & B Guest House, Back side, Bommalasatram, Nandyal - 518 501, Kurnool District.                                                  

    …Complainants

-Vs-

1.  M/s.National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager,

        11 - 169, Subash Road, Anantapur - 515001.

1.  The Branch Manager, M/s National Insurance Company Limited,

        H.No.40/283 - A, 1^st Floor, Thula Complex,Kurnool - 518001.                  

         ...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri. D.A.Anees Ahamed, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member, PRESIDENT (FAC))

C.C. No. 75/2012

1.     This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties for the payment of:-

1. Rs.2,20,465/- towards vehicle damages with 24% per annum interest from 11-09-2011;

1. Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for discomfort for not using the car;

1. Rs.10,000/- as cost of the case.

2. The complainant’s case is that his car Indica Vista bearing No.AP 21 AD 3085 was insured with opposite  parties under comprehensive policy bearing No.551000/31/09/6100004982 for a period from 31-01-2010 to 29-01-2011.  The car met with an accident on 11-09-2010 at Kothur while going to Kanipakam.  The complainant was owner cum driver at the time of accident.  The complainant immediately informed opposite parties about the accident.  Opposite parties assessed the loss through a surveyor.  The surveyor’s report is also with opposite parties.  The complainant got his vehicle repaired by spending Rs.2,20,465/- at Prani Auto Plaza Private Limited, who is authorized dealer for TATA Vehicles.  The complainant also suffered a loss of Rs.30,000/- for not using the vehicle  for three months.  Opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was used for hire or reward.  The complainant’s claim was treated as “No Claim” illegally through his wife traveled in the car at the time of accident and the car was not used for hire or reward.  Aggrieved by the action of opposite parties, the complainant filed this case before this Forum claiming appropriate reliefs.  

3.     The complainant filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.

4.     Summary of written version of opposite parties is that for the allegation that on 11-09-2010 the Vista Car driven by the complainant  himself carrying his wife and friends met with an accident near Kothur while going to Kanipakam is not supported by any documentary proof.  As per policy rule “Limitation as to use” the vehicle should not be used for hire or reward.  In this case the car was used for hire or reward.  So the claim of the complainant was closed as “No Claim”.  The declaration of the complainant that he incurred Rs.2,20,465/- towards car repair is false and formulated for the purpose of this case.  In view of the reasons mentioned above opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the case as there is no act of deficiency on their part.

5.     Sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are filed by opposite parties.

6.     Both parties filed their written arguments.

7.     Hence the points for consideration are:-

(i) Whether there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

1. To what relief?

8.     Admittedly the complainant car Indica Vista bearing No.AP 21 AD 3085 was insured under the comprehensive policy of opposite parties bearing No.551000/31/19/6100004982.  Ex.B2/Ex.A5 is insurance policy.  The car driven by the complainant himself was damaged in an accident on 11-09-2010 at Kothur while going to Kanipakam.  The policy was in force at the time of accident.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated by opposite parties on the ground that the complainant violated the rules of the policy.  Ex.B2 is repudiation letter.  Ex.A3 are bills issued by Prani Auto Plaza Private Limited for repairs.  Ex.A2 is F.I.R. in Crime No.54/2010 dated 12-10-2010 of Kallur P.S. in Chittoor District. 

9.     The complainant has to prove two points to support his claim.                    1. Whether the complainant’s wife was traveling in the car at the time of accident.  2. Whether the bills filed are genuine

10.    According to S.No.12 of F.I.R., car was having inmates by name Sudha Madhavi and Vamsika who are the wife and daughter of Sri.G.Rajasekar Reddy, who gave a complaint about the accident in Kallur P.S.  According to V.Sadguru Murthy, the complainant and the driver of the car on the date of accident, his wife was also traveling in the car and no breach of policy rule happened.  So he is entitled for insurance coverage of damages.  The opposite parties are contended that as per Criminal Case Records there is no proof that wife of insured traveled in the car at the time of accident, and the vehicle is considered as “hired or rewarded”.  As the rule “Limitation as to use” is breached, no assessment was made by the surveyor. The complainant failed to examine Rajasekar Reddy to prove that his wife traveled in the car.  The bills filed by the complainant are concocted for the purpose of the case.  Prani Auto was not examined to establish the authenticity of the bills.  In the absence of material evidence it is considered that wife of the complainant did not travel in the car at the time of accident and the bills of expenditure are concocted. So the contention of opposite parties that the vehicle is hired or rewarded is acceptable.  The repudiation of claim treating it as “No Claim” is in order.   In view of what is stated above this Forum holds that the complainant violated policy rule “limitation as to use” and failed to prove deficiency on the part of opposite parties.  Hence complainant is not entitled for any relief.

11.    In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost as to the case.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30^th day of April, 2013.

Sd/-                                                                                 Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil                    For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Photo copy of Registration Certificate of Vehicle bearing

No.AP 21 AD 3085 dated 22-02-2010.

Ex.A2                Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.54/2010 of Kallur P.S.

Chittoor District Dated 12-10-2010.

Ex.A3        Photo copy of Estimate Furnished by Prani Auto Plaza Private Limited dated 21-12-2010.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 16-08-2011.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Policy issued by opposite party No.1.

Ex.A6        Photo copy of Payment Vouchers issued by Prani Auto Plaza Private Limited.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Policy bearing No.51000/31/19/6100004982 issued by

National Insurance Company Limited.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 16-08-2011.

Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT (FAC)

// 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               :