FA.No.1208/2005 against CD.No.55/2004 District Consumer Forum, Khammam.

Between-

Challagundla Satyanarayana,

S/o.Raghavaiah, Age - 41 years,

Occ- Agriculture and Owner of Tractor,

Bearing No. AP 20 U 4604,

R/o.Bhimavaram Village, Vemsoor Mandal,

Khammam District.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

H.No.9-3-143, Old Club Road, Near Vinod Mahal,

Khammam, rep. by its Branch Manager.

…Respondent/Opp.Party.

Counsel  for the Appellant       - Mr.D.Sudarshan Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondent    - Mr.V.Ajay Kumar.                                                  

QUORUM- THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND 

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT..

Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Lady Member)

-------

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

1.         Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, Khammam, dated 27.07.2005 in CD.No.55/2004, the complainant preferred this appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The brief facts as set out in the complaint are the complainant is an agriculturist and the owner of tractor and trailor bearing No.AP 20 U 4604.  On 29.01.2004, the complainant sent his driver along with the tractor and trailor with a load of gross to unload the same at Jannaram village of Enkur Mandal.  The driver unloaded the grass and returned to his village.  When the tractor and trailor reached outskirts of Lankapally village, the driver of tractor and trailor stopped the vehicle on the left side of the road and got down from it for attending nature call.  While getting down the vehicle, the driver switched on the rear lights of tractor and trailor for identification.  In spite of that a Swaraj Mazda mini van bearing No.AP 5 Y 923 coming from the same direction, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed the stationed tractor and trailor, due to which the tractor and trailor completely damaged.  Immediately after the accident, on a complaint, the P.S. Penubally registered a case against the driver of the van under Sec.337 IPC.  The tractor and trailor was insured with the respondent company vide policy bearing No.610902/31/03/02183 valid from 14.05.2003 to 13.05.2004 covering the date of the accident.  After the accident, the complainant took the tractor and trailor to the authorized mechanic to cause repairs to the same, who gave estimation for the damages at Rs.1,66,000/-.  Later the complainant submitted an application to the opposite party seeking compensation for the damages caused to the tractor and trailor along with all the relevant documents.  However, the opposite party Insurance Company has been evading the payment.  Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking damages of Rs.1,66,000/- together with interest.

3.         Opposite party filed counter denying all the averments made by the complainant, stating that the applicant is put to strict proof that he is the owner of tractor and trailor bearing No.AP 20 U 4604 and on 29.1.2004, the tractor and trailor with a load of grass went to Jannaram village to unload the same and after unloading, in return when he stopped at outskirts of Lankapalli village on the left side of the road, a van bearing No. AP 5Y 923 coming from same direction dashed against the stationed vehicle and the vehicle was completely damaged.  The opposite party specifically denied that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party and the complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages of the tractor and trailor as per the estimation of the authorized mechanic.  The complainant is entitled to claim compensation only against the driver and owner and insurer of the van bearing No.AP 5Y 923 as the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said van.  Further any compensation, if payable to the complainant, is subject to the M.V.Act and rules made there under. 

4.         District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant was not a consumer.

5.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

6.         It is observed from the record that no documents were marked on behalf of the complainant.  Heard the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. appellant herein.  He submitted that though the policy copy, quotations and bills were filed before the District Forum, the said documents were not taken into consideration by the District Forum.  The appellant has filed copies of all these documents before the State Commission along with the present appeal and submitted that the District Forum did not go into the merits of the case.  We observe from the record that the District Forum while dismissing the complaint held that the driver and owner of the said van were not made as parties to the complaint which observation, we are of the considered opinion is purely technical and we find it a fit case to remand back to District Forum to decide the case on merits. 

7.         We, therefore, remand this matter to the District Consumer Forum, Khammam, to conduct denovo enquiry by giving opportunity to both sides and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 

8.         In the result, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Consumer Forum, Khammam, to conduct denovo enquiry  by issuing notice to both parties and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order since the matter pertains to the year 2005.  The complainant i.e. appellant herein is directed to appear before the District Consumer Forum, Khammam on 02.05.2008 without fail.

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

Dt-16.04.2008.

Vvr.