Date of filing: 12.05.2011
Date of disposal: 03.09.2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Monday, the 03rd day of September, 2012
C.C.No.99/2011
Between:
S.Shabbeer,
S/o Late Abdul,
Lakshmi Nagar,
Anantapur. … Complainant
Vs.
M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Room No.9, Harikrupa Towers,
13/191-192, R.F. Road,
Anantapur. … Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri V.Rajasekhar and Sri D.Shafiulla, Advocates for the complainant and Sri P.Krishna SwamyKumar, Advocate for the Opposite Party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite part claiming a sum of Rs.1,05,360/- towards the repair cost of car as per bills and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is a registered owner of Indica Car bearing No.AP-04-Y-3384 and he is a resident of Lakshmi Nagar, Anantapur. The complainant insured the said vehicle with the opposite party under policy bearing No.1810792338001991 by paying the premium amount of Rs.5,428.62/- for own damage and Rs.10,240/- towards third party liability and the validity is from 23.12.2009 to 22.12.2010. On 28.12.2009 at about 5.30 A.M. the driver T.Gangadri was proceeding from Atmakur to Anantapur and when the vehicle reached Handri Niva Canal, the front left tyre of the vehicle got punctured and the driver of the vehicle lost control over it and dashed against the road side boulders in the result the car got damaged. Immediately the accident was brought to the notice of the opposite party and the opposite party advised the vehicle owner to proceed with repairs. Then the owner of the vehicle got repaired his damaged vehicle with Baba Motors, Tata Authorized Service Station, Anantapur. A surveyor was also deputed by the opposite party but he did not submit his report. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,05,360/- towards the repair of the car and submitted all the relevant bills with a claim form and requested the opposite party to settle the claim at an early date. But inspite of repeated requests the opposite party has not settled the claim till date. Finally the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 16.03.2011 requesting the opposite party to pay the repair costs of the car as per the bills and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. The said notice was served, but there was no reply from the opposite party non settlement of the claim by the opposite party to the complainant even after issuing the legal notice falls under deficiency of service when the policy is live.
3. The counsel for the opposite party filed counter stating that all the allegations made in the complaint are not true and the liability of the opposite party is strictly subject to the terms and conditions, exceptions and limitations of the said policy. The opposite party submits that unless the car which was involved in the accident was driven by a duly licensed driver as per the conditions of a valid permit and fitness certificate, this opposite party cannot be held liable. The opposite party further submits that the opposite party does not admit that the bayonet, front head light doom, A.C. condenser, Radiator A.C. Fan and Radiation Fan Press, Pump head dynamo battery, air filter, front panel, timing covering, balance rod, oil filter body, Royalar set, front tyre disk, front bumper, Diesel filter body and A.C. pipes got damaged. The opposite party further submits that he was not liable to pay Rs.1,05,360/- and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite part?
ii) To what relief?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A9 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, the opposite party did not file evidence on affidavit and no documents have been marked on his behalf.
6. Heard both sides
7. POINT NO 1:- - The case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of India Car bearing No.AP-04-Y-3384 and the said car is insured by the opposite party under policy bearing No.1810792338001991. The complainant paid a premium of Rs.5,428.62 for own damage and Rs.10,240/- towards third party liability and the validity is from 23.12.2009 to 22.12.2010. After hearing the arguments and after perusing the documents filed by the complainant Ex.A1 to A9. As per Ex.A1 there is no dispute with regard to date of validity are with regard to the payment of premium. As per Ex.A5 document the certificate issued by Anantapur Rural Police dt.31.12.2009 it is certified that one T. Venkata Ramana S/o T.Gangadhri age 28 years. D.No.7-88-C, Lakshmi Nagar, Anantapur who is the driver of car bearing No.AP-04-Y-3384. While he was proceeding from Atmakur to Anantapur on 28.12.2009 at about 5.30 A.M. the car’s front left tyre got punctured and unable to control the speed of the car he dashed against the road side boulder due to which the Indica Car got damaged but none of the inmates of the car sustained any injuries. This shows that the driver of the car at the time of accident was T.Venkata Ramana as per the certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, Anantapur Rural. Again in the same certificate at the end the police has certified that one B.Kristappa’s driving license was verified and its No.DLFAP00251912003 and its valid up to 23.04.2023 for LMV while 02.10.2010 for Motor Cab vehicles. In the above said certificate there are two different names mentioned by the police hence it is not confirmed that who drove the vehicle at the time of accident finally. T.VenkataRamana was penalized by a sum of Rs.300/- for the said accident vide receipt NO.211514 under section 184-B of M.V. Act and Rules dt.31.12.2009 which is marked as Ex.A6.
8. But whereas as per the complaint the driver was one T.Gangadri who was involved in the accident who is none other than the father of T.Venkata Ramana after careful perusal of the above documents there is no relevance to one another with regard to the driver who was driving at the time of accident. The discrepancy in the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant shows that there is some unhidden truth with regard to the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of accident. And whether the said driver was having valid driving license at the time of accident or not. In the above circumstances we are of the view hat the complainant has not filed this complaint with clean hands. Hence, the repudiation by the opposite party will not fall under deficiency of service. The repudiation of the claim by the opposite party showing the reasons that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy has some truth in it. In the above circumstances we are of the view that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the opposite party repudiated the claim rightly.
9. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 03rd day of September, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Photo copy of the Insurance Policy bearing No. 1810792338001991 issued by
the opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 Office copy of the legal notice dt.16.03.2011 got issued by the complainant to
the opposite party.
Ex.A3 Postal receipt dt.17.03.2011.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgement signed by the opposite party.
Ex.A5 Certificate dt.31.12.2009 issued by the Inspector of Police, Anantapur Rural.
Ex.A6 Challan and receipt for compounding offences dt.31.12.2009 for Rs.300/-
issued by the Inspector of Police, Anantapur Rural.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of registration certificate in respect of Car bearing No.AP-04-Y-3384
issued by the Registration Authority, Anantapur.
Ex.A8 Original bills issued by the Baba Motors, Tata Authorized Service Station,
Anantapur in favour of the complainant (9 in number)
Ex.A9 Photo copy of driving license relating to the T.Venkataramana.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
NIL
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
