Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/122/2013

S Sanyasi Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

L.S. Naidu

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:27-05-2013

                                                                                                Date of Order:31-03-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                              Tuesday, the 31^st day of March, 2015.

                                  CONSUMER CASE No.122/2013

Between:-

S. Sanyasi Rao, S/o Appala Naidu, Hindu,

aged-45, D. No. 17/2, Akkireddypalem,

Gopalapatnam Post, Anakapalli,

Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.The Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

   Chodavaram Bus Stop, Wood Plaza, Anakapalli,

   Visakhapatnam.

2.The Regional Manager, New India Assurance

   Company Ltd., Regional Office, Claims Hub,

   17-10-12, 4^th Floor, Pavan Paradise, Dwarakanagar,

   Visakhapatnam.

3.S.A. Rao, Insurance Surveyor, Flat No. 301,

   Vijaya Apartments, APSEB Colony,

   Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                         …  Opposite Parties

                           

          This case coming on 03.02.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri L.S. Naidu, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri D. Siva Prasad,, Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Opposite Parties 1 and 3 being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an order in his favour directing the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally: a) Principal amount of Rs.2,31,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 10.10.2012 to 20.05.2013 i.e., an amount of Rs.32,340/-  totaling a sum of Rs.2,63,340/-; To pay an amount of Rs.2,63,340/- including the interest @ 24% p.a. and also to pay the interest on Rs.2,31,000/- from the date of filing the Complainant till the realization;  b)To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the Complainant; c) And for such other relief and other reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

2.       The Opposite Parties 1 and 3 did not resist the claim of the Complainant as they were set exparte and remained set exparte.  

          The 2^nd Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

           

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that he is the Owner of the Hydra Crane bearing No. AP31AV2767, bearing Engg. No. S433098193 and Chasis No. B71172 makers classification is known as 12xW-12 Ton Crane.   Unladed weight is 9800 and gross vehicle weight is 9800 Kgs.    The Complainant is an independent business man for his crane i.e., nature of job is to lift the fallen vehicles if any information from the fallen vehicle owners.    The said Crane was insured with the 1^st Opposite Party wih policy bearing No.62030131110100000332 valid from 10.04.2012 to 09.04.2013 i.e., commercial vehicle package policy.   He paid as under premium a sum of Rs.5,949/-.   The 2^nd Opposite Party is the higher authority to the 1^st Opposite Party.   The Complainant received a phone call from the vehicle bearing No. AP31TW1169 Lorry on 10.10.2012 afternoon as the lorry has fallen on the down side edge of the road near at ATIGYRAMMAPETTA on Narsipatnam to Chintapalli Road.  The Complainant stated that after receiving the said call he attended to lift the vehicle (i.e., AP31TW1169) through his Hydra Crane (AP31AV2767).   While lifting the vehicle, the vehicle of the Complainant i.e., Hydra Crane has fallen though the Complainant’s vehicle is capable to lift the said empty lorry (Complainant vehicle’s carrying capacity is of 12 tons), unfortunately his insured vehicle fell down on 10.10.2012, immediately the Complainant informed the 1^st Opposite Party regarding the fall of his vehicle (fortunately no injuries to the driver/Complainant) spot surveyor one by name Srinivasa Rao came to the spot and took the photos and with his permission the vehicle was shifted to garrage for repair i.e., PRABHU MECHANICAL WORKS, located at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.   The surveyor appointed by the 1^st Opposite Party estimated the damages of the vehicle at more than Rs.2,31,000/-, the same was paid and repaired by the Complainant, the bills were kept with the final surveyor by name S.A. Rao i.e.,. the 3^rd Opposite Party.   The spot surveyor Srinivasa Rao and the 3^rd Opposite Party i.e., S.A. Rao orally mentioned that his claim would come because the crane was not fallen on wells or not in a loose soil, hence the claim would come to him as per their package policy which is also valid at the time of accident.   The Complainant further stated that he submitted the Claim Form with the 1^st Opposite Party and attended to the 1^st Opposite Party regarding his claim i.e., the sum of Rs.2,31,000/- but the 1^st Opposite Party neither sanctioned the claim nor rejected.   But all of sudden on 29.10.2012 the Complainant received a letter through 3^rd Opposite Party/S.A. Rao insurance surveyor stating that the Complainant’s claim was repudiated as under (“OVER TURN”).   However, the Complainant wrote a letter dated 12.04.2013 to all the Opposite Parties 1 to 3, the 2^nd Opposite Party replied through his letter dated 16.04.2013 that they are confirming the 3^rd Opposite Party letter.   The Complainant also renewed his policy with the 1^st Opposite Party with policy No.62010431120100000147 valid up to 09.04.2013.   The Complainant further stated that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 never cared to respond to the Complainant in times of crises and thus committed deficiency of services subjecting the Complainant to unbearable mental agony and suffering.    All the time the Complainant was made to believe that they would be paying the amount to the Complainant but to the surprise of the Complainant, even after issued a letter by the Complainant dated 12.04.2013, they have not settled the claim.    Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.      Exs.A1 to A13 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       On the other hand, the 2^nd Opposite Party resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that in absence of the additional premium as per the IMT 47 to cover the risk of loss or damage due to overturn is not covered.   Accordingly, the 2^nd Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant on 29.10.2012 as well as per the letter dated 16.04.2013, the letter/s of repudiation is valid binding on the Complainant, as the same was issued as per the terms and conditions of the policy as well as in absence of specific premium as per the specified IMT endorsements, in absence of additional premium to cover the risk of the specified loss, as per the specified IMT, there is no contract of insurance to cover such loss, the liability of the 2^nd Opposite Party is only a contractual liability upon payment of the necessary premium.   The 2^nd Opposite Party stated further that in absence of the deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party as well as in view of inadmissibility of claim of the Complainant, in absence of the additional premium  as per the IMT 47, the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant did not amount to deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party, the 2^nd Opposite Party-Insurance Company not at all liable to pay the alleged estimated loss amount of Rs.2,31,000/- with interest 24% P.A. from the date of loss or the 2^nd Opposite Party-Insurance company is even not at all liable to pay surveyor assessed amount of Rs.40,950/- or the alleged damages of Rs.50,000/- as well as the costs of proceedings in absence of the deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party-insurance company.

 

 

6.       The 2^nd Opposite Party filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to buttress its contention.   Exs.B1 to B7 are marked for 2^nd Opposite Party.

 

7.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant as well as the 2^nd Opposite Party.

         

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that Ex.A4 (which is also part of Ex.B1) is the Certificate of Insurance which covers the accident vehicle from 10.04.2012 to 09.04.2013.   The accident took place on 10.10.2012 when the accident vehicle i.e., the crane was damaged by “OVER TURN” while lifting a fallen lorry.   The claim was repudiated by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties as the damage by “OVER TURN” is not covered under this policy which covers only “Basic OD Cover”.   The repudiation by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 is correct.  This is so because, as seen from Certificate of Insurance Ex.A4 (which is also Ex.B1), the premium paid was Rs.3,686/- for “Basic OD Cover”.   On the other hand, as can be seen from Ex.A5 (which is also Ex.B6)-the renewed policy taken after the accident-the premium paid was Rs.4,555/- covering “OVER TURNING” besides “Basic OD Cover”.   Thus an amount of Rs.869/- was specifically paid, to cover accident by damage by “Overturning”.  This makes it amply clear that as per the Ex.A4 (which is also Ex.B1) no amount was paid to cover damage by “Overturning”, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 repudiated the claim of the Complainant seeking insurance amount for damage of his crane by “Overturning” on 10.10.2013.   In other words, as the Complainant did not pay premium to cover damage by “Overturning” while taking the Ex.A4 (which is also Ex.B1) policy, he is not entitled to insurance amount for the damage occurred to his crane by “Overturning” on 10.10.2012.   So, it is as clear as daylight that the Complainant approached this Forum holding an untenable claim.   Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

9.       In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of March, 2015.

      Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                       Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	22.04.2008	Certification of Registration issued by the Transport Department	Photo copy
Ex.A02	13.04.2010	Tax Receipt No. AP31AV2767 issued by the Transport Department to the Complainant	Photo copy
EX.A03	18.12.2002	Driving Licence	Photo copy
Ex.A04	10.04.2012	Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance (Commercial Vehicle Package Policy)issued by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A05	10.04.2013	Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance (Commercial Vehicle Package Policy)issued by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A06	29.10.2012	Letter issued by the 3rd OP to the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A07	12.10.2012	Estimation letter issued by the Prabhu Mechanical Works	Photo copy
Ex.A08	12.04.2013	Letter issued by the Complainant to the Ops 1 to 3 with Postal Receipt & Ack.	Photo copy
Ex.A09	12.04.2013	Letter issued by the Complainant to Ops 1to 3 with Postal Receipt & Ack.	Photo copy
Ex.A10.	12.04.2013	Letter issued by the Complainant to Ops 1to 3 with Postal Receipt & Ack.	Photo copy
Ex.A11	16.04.2013	Letter issued by 2nd OP of Deputy Manager to the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A12		8 (eight) photos	Original
Ex.A13		CD (1)	Original

 

For the 2^nd Opposite Party:-           

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B01	10.04.2012	Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance (Commercial Vehicle Package Policy)issued by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant	Attested copy
Ex.B02	29.10.2012	Final Survey Report (Motor) issued by the 3rd OP in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.B03		14 (fourteen) Photos	Original
Ex.B04	21.07.2014	Letter issued by the 3rd OP of Surveyor to the 2nd OP	Original
Ex.B05	20.08.2014	Third Party/Surveyor Affidavit filed by the 2nd OP	Original
Ex.B06	10.04.2013	Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance (Commercial Vehicle Package Policy)issued by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant	Attested copy
Ex.B07		Policy Premium Schedule of the Complainant	Photo Copy

 

      Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member