A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 940/2010 against CC 647/2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad.
Between :
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Asst. Manager
And authorized representative of Agarwal Foundries,
S/o R. P. Sharma, aged aout 45 years,
O/a Rama Towers, 5-4-83, 2nd Floor, TSK Chambers,
M. G. Road, Secunderabad – 500 003 Appellant/complainant
And
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Represented by its Managing Director,
Deccan Chambers, 4th Floor, 6-3-666-B,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500 082.
Respondents/opp. parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. G. Venkata Swamy Goud
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy
Coram ;
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
And
Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Hon’ble Member
Thursday, the 1st Day of March
Two Thousand Twelve
Oral Order : per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )
****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the complainant as against the orders in CC 647/2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as
2. The brief facts of the are as under :
The complainant had taken a Motor Vehicle Accident Policy bearing No. 1802372328100002 dated 30.1.2007 for Rs.7,72,000/- valid up to 29.01.2008 for a premium of Rs.13,151/-. It is a comprehensive policy drivers, cleaners and conductors ) with a third party accident liability against the vehicle Reg. No. AP 28 AS 5772 ) Mobil Hydraulic Registered at R. T. A. Hyderabad. He made a complaint to the opposite party vide letter dated 1.10.2007 informing about the accident that took place on 14.06..2007 at 07.10 PM to the said vehicle within the factory premises and requested to appoint a surveyor and assess the loss but they neither settle the dispute nor sent any reply. Therefore, he was forced to get his vehicle by spending Rs.92,905/- under various bills by Johny Traders and Sai Ganesh Crane Services and submitted his claim along wit the bills to the OPs In spite of written several letters mentioned in the complainant for settlement of the claim there was no reply from the Opposite parties which amounts to cheating, Criminal breach of trust and fraud and also deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.12,14,210/- with interest @ 24% pa, Rs.one lakh compensation and Rs.20,000/- costs.
3. Though Sri G. Srinivasacharyulu filed Vakalat for the Opposite parties but did not file any counter and thus there is no written version on behalf of Ops.
4. The complainant evidence affidavit reiterating his respective pleadings and Ex. A1 to A 23 were marked on behalf of the complainant and evidence on behalf of OPs.
5. Having heard the and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation and Rs.2000/- costs holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. Dissatisfied with the said orders the complainant filed this appeal and contended that when the incurred so much of expenditure in getting the vehicle repaired the District Forum inadequately awarded only Rs.10,000/- compensation and Rs.2000/ costs which is illegal , arbitrary and not sustainable either in law or on facts and thus prayed to allow the appeal and to order the Ops to pay the amounts as prayed for in the complainant.
7. Heard the counsel for the appellant with reference to the grounds of appeal and no arguments were advanced for OPs
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for enhancement of any
9. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had taken a Motor Vehicle Accident Policy bearing No. 1802372328100002 dated 30.1.2007 for Rs.7,72,000/- valid up to 29.01.2008 for a premium of Rs.13,151/-. and that while the policy was in force it met with an accident on 14.06.2007 in the factory premises and therefore the complainant addressed letter to OPs to appoint a surveyor to assess the damage and that no such surveyor was appointed and that he got repaired the vehicle by spending huge amount of and brought the vehicle to workable condition and that also incurred loss as the crane was laid off due to accident. The complainant did not file any documents evidencing the accident such as police report, FIR etc. He marked the bills showing that he spent total amount of Rs. and mere marking of bills is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that so much of amount of expenditure incurred by him it much more so when the alleged repairs got done at the choice place of the complainant and not with the authorized workshops and the District Forum did not discuss anything with regard to the said bills to arrive as to how much in fact spent towards the alleged vehicle but holding that OPs rendered deficiency in service awarded only Rs.10,000/- which is not sustainable viewed in any point. Whether the complainant comes within the meaning of ‘ and the dispute is a consumer dispute has also to be decided in this case. Even though the OPs remained exparte it is the duty of Forum to consider the bills and arrive at the conclusion in the said context as to the actual amount of expenditure incurred by the complainant but did not do so therefore we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to be remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to both sides.
10. In the result, for the reasons given by this Commission the order under Appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum for fresh disposal according to law keeping in view the observations made in these orders.
MEMBER
MEMBER
DATED 01.03.2012
