Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

            The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.2,25,333/- being the loss of damage to the vehicle, together with interest of Rs.75,107/- (@24% p.a.), Rs.50,000/- as damages towards mental agony, R.5,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 25 AC 1597 and insured the vehicle with the OP1 vide policy No.4633300/31/2012/272.   The said policy covered the period from 16-04-11 to 15-04-12 covering vehicle damage, driver, cleaner and six employees.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 18-11-11 near Ravivalasa junction within the limits of SHO, Boghapuram PS in Orissa State.  The incident was reported to the concerned SHO., who inturn registered it as Cr.No.238/2011.   The complainant informed the same to the opposite parties who in turn appointed a surveyor for inspection.  The complainant carried out the repairs by incurring Rs.2,25,333/-.  The complainant submitted bills to the claim settlement office, Vijayawada along with relevant claim form, driving license, RC., FC., FIR.    Thereafter the insurance service centre on  24-06-12, 15-06-12 and 09-10-12 wrote letters to get the claim settled at Rs.58,400/-, contending that some unauthorized persons were traveling in the said vehicle in violation of the policy.  The action of the opposite parties in not settling the claim properly amounted to deficiency of service.  The complainant claimed interest @24% p.a., besides damages of Rs.50,000/-.

3.   The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the version of the 1^st opposite party and their contention in nutshell is hereunder:

As per conditions of the policy three persons have to travel in the vehicle.   The said capacity of the vehicle AP 25 AC 1597 is 2+1 in all i.e., the driver, conductor and cleaner.    The risk covered was for the workers only that too at the time of working spot but not while traveling in the vehicle.   As seen from FIR six persons were traveling in the vehicle AP25AC 1597 at the time of accident; driver of that lorry drove it with high speed that to in wrong direction; the said accident referred to in the complaint occurred due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle AP 25 AC 1597.   After receiving the claim settlement the opposite parties appointed a surveyor to inspect the case and who inturn submitted report.   Subsequently, the competent authority approved the complainant’s claim at Rs.58,400/- on compromise basis since unauthorized persons were traveling in it.   The complainant sent a letter intimating his non acceptance to the offer of the opposite parties.   As per surveyor’s report the estimated damage caused to the vehicle was Rs.97,515/-.   As the bill purported to be given by Sri Venkateswara Agencies, Chipurupalli for Rs.44,800/- is an invoice only and the bills for Rs.23,800/- and Rs.5000/- issued by Atlas Body Building Works, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam were of the year 2004 and the complainant in collusion of the said firm got filled them for claiming more amount, the opposite party rejected them.   The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service as the complainant did not come forward to have settlement.  The opposite parties are ready and willing to pay Rs.58,400/- on compromise basis as the complainant violated terms and conditions of the policy.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4. Exs.A-1 to A-11 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-6 on behalf of opposite parties were marked.  

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. And if so, whether the complainant is entitled to what amount?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim interest as claimed?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to damages?
5. To what relief?

6. Admitted facts in this case are these:

        a. The complainant is owner of the vehicle bearing

                No.AP25 AC 1597 (Ex.A-5).

        b. The complainant insured the vehicle with the opposite parties                         (Ex.A-3 = B-1).

        c. The vehicle met with an accident on 18-11-11 at A.Ravivalasa                        Junction of Bhoghapuram Mandal, Vijayanagaram District;                         the SHO., Bhoghapuram PS registered a crime against                   driver of the vehicle AP25 AC 1597 and filed chargesheet                      before the Addl. Judicial 1^st class Magistrate,                                         Vijayanagaram (Ex.A-1 and A-2).

        d. On intimation from the complainant the opposite parties                        appointed a surveyor and he visited the place of accident                  and submitted a report (Ex.B-2).

        e. The complainant while submitting his claims furnished bills                     showing the amounts incurred by him (Exs.B-3 to B-6).

        f. The opposite parties suggested the complainant to accept                      Rs.58,400/- if willing (Exs.A-6 to A-11).

7.   POINTS 1&2:-  The complainant in para 2 of his complaint simply mentioned that the insured vehicle unfortunately met with an accident on 18-11-11.   The complaint as well as complainant’s affidavit was silent as to how the accident took place causing damage to the vehicle.  The SHO., Bhoghapuram PS registered a crime against the insured vehicle i.e., AP 25AC 1597 on the report given by one Komatireddy Venkata Reddy, driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 29T 1515 as seen from  Ex.A-1 and A-2.   Therefore, the averments mentioned in the report given by the defacto-complainant in crime No.238/11 has to be believed in the absence of any report regarding accident by the driver of the AP 25AC 1597.  

8.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the subject policy covered 3 persons only besides the risk for 6 workers and at the time of accident workers were traveling in the insured vehicle. Ex.A-1 and A-2 coupled with Ex.B-2 clearly established that driver of the vehicle AP 25AC 1597 was negligent.  As the claim was in respect of vehicle damage it cannot be said that the complainant violated terms and conditions of the policy.  The above contentions of the opposite parties were devoid of merit.         

9.  The report given to police by the defacto-complainant Komatireddy Venkata Reddy revealed that the insured vehicle was coming speedily in wrong direction. The surveyor in his report (Ex.B-2) opined that the insured vehicle (AP 25 AC 1597) was coming in wrong way of the track after filling the fuel in the filling station, when trying to cross the road another vehicle passing on high way with a good speed dashed against left portion of the vehicle. Thus Ex.B-3 surveyor report corroborated the manner of accident as mentioned in the report given to police.  The surveyor in his report estimated the damage at Rs.97,515/-.   

10.   The opposite parties in para 7 of their version mentioned that the complainant presented bills for Rs.44,500/-, Rs.23,800/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.9700/- rejected them giving reasons.   It can therefore be inferred that the complainant furnished the bills for Rs.44,500/-, Rs.23,800/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.9,700/- (Exs.B-3 to B-6).  

11.  Let us see the reasons for rejection of the above bills.   The opposite parties in their version and affidavit mentioned that they rejected Ex.B-3 (for Rs.44,500/-) as it was an invoice; bills worth of Rs.23,800/- (Ex.B-4) Rs.5,000/- (Ex.B-5) as they were of the year 2004; Rs.9700/- (Ex.B-6) as it was of the year 2005.  In Ex.B-3 dated 30-11-11 tax invoice/credit bill was mentioned.  Further in Ex.B-3 the word ‘credit’ was struck off.  In our considered opinion there is no difference at all between invoice and credit bill.  Exs.B-4 and B-5 were dated 01-12-11 for Rs.23,800/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively.   At the top of Exs.B-4 and B-5 ‘VSKCO 147504 dt.18-03-04’ was mentioned.   The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that VSKCO 147504 dt.18-03-04 mentioned in Ex.B-4 and B-5 relating to some commercial tax license numbers is having considerable force.     The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that Exs.B-4 and B-5 were of the year 2004 is devoid of merit. Likewise, GRNVSP/06/01177 dated 01-04-2005 as mentioned in Ex.B-6.   Therefore rejection of claim covered by Exs.B-3 to B-6 by the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.

12.  The surveyor in this report estimated the damage at Rs.97,515/-.   The amount covered by Exs.B-3 to B-6 (rejected by the opposite parties) amounted to Rs.83,000/-.  Both the amounts together come to Rs.1,80,515/-.   In our opinion that the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,80,515/- towards vehicle damage.   We therefore answer this point accordingly.     

13.   POINT No.3:-   The accident took place on 18-11-11.  The complaint as well as complainant’s affidavit was silent when he submitted claim form.   In Ex.A-6 letter the opposite parties on                     26-04-12 expressed their offer of approving the claim for Rs.58,500/-.   Any insurance company has to settle the claim within reasonable period i.e., two or three months.   The complainant claimed interest @24% p.a., from the date of accident.   Therefore granting interest @9% p.a., from 01-04-12  will meet ends of justice.  The opposite parties are therefore directed to pay interest @9% p.a., on Rs.1,80,515/- from 01-04-12 onwards.   We therefore answer this point accordingly. 

14.   POINT No.4:  The complainant claimed damages worth of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.    Awarding Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony for not settling the claim will meet ends of justice.  We therefore answer this point accordingly.

15.   POINT No.5:    In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,80,515/- (Rupees one lakh, eighty thousand, five hundred and fifteen only) together    with   interest @9% p.a., from 01-04-12 till payment.

2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards mental agony.

3. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint.

4. The opposite parties are directed to comply the above order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 10^th day of March, 2014.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:  

        PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.