BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 11th day of December, 2008
C.C.No. 165/07
Between:
Ch.Krishna Prasad, S/o. Ch.Satyanarayana, Working as Post paid Zonal Lead
Reliance Infocom Limited,
Sagar Complex 3rd Floor, H.No.4-1-333, Hyderabad . … Complainant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager,
Kurnool.
. Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. D. Srinivasulu , Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.165/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite party to pay Rs. 63,971/- towards repairs and replacement of spare parts necessitated on account of accident on 5-1-2006 to the complainants vehicle bearing No. AP 04G – 4301 covered under insurance policy No. 433100/ 2005 / 4148 of the opposite party , Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony , distress trauma and hardship occurred at the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party , Rs.2,000/- as fees paid by complainant to the independent license surveyor , Rs.27,000/- as incurred expenditure of the complainant for hiring taxi during 5-1-2006 to 5-4-2006 i..e, the repair period of the accident vehicle with MSA Motors , Rs.10,000/- for repudiation of genuine claim and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the case alleging vehicle of the complainant covered under insurance of the opposite party during the subsistence of said policy met with accident on 5-1-2006 and the claim of the complainant for the incurred cost of its repair and replacement of spare parts was repudiated by the opposite party on 9-1-2006 / 3-4-2006 alleging no insurable interest to the complainant while in fact renewing the policy of the complainant taking into account the particulars in RC standing in the name of the complainant employer and the complainant as owner of said vehicle purchased under finance from M/s. Reliance Info com Limited and there by estopped from taking such plea and repudiation of claim being baseless and arbitrary the complainant was not only put to mental agony and repair charges worth Rs.63,971/- but also compelled to incur expenditure for making tours engaging in taxi in discharge of his job duties and necessitated this case .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filing its written version denying any deficiency and there by any of its liability to complainants claim .
3. The written version of the opposite party besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case and requiring the strict proof of the complaint averments as to the ownership of complainant to the insured vehicle and his insurable interest and justifying repudiation of claim , submits that the policy in question was obtained by the complainant misrepresenting himself as owner of said vehicle and so the policy was issued in good faith and the said vehicle being under the ownership of Reliance Infocom Limited , the complainant is having any insurable interest and so the same was reflected in repudiation dated 9-1-2006 and was reiterated in repudiation letter dated 3-4-2006. It further submit that the earlier policy to which the complainant allege the policy in question was renewed policy , was not at all issued by the opposite party and the repudiation of policy being done in due consideration of all relevant factors , deny any arbitrariness and deficiency in said repudiation and there by being having any liability for complainants claim , seeking the dismissal of complaint with cost.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A12 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant , the opposite party side has taken reliance on its sworn affidavit .
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of the opposite party in repudiation of the claim and there by any of the opposite party liability to complainants claim.
6. The Ex.A12 is the attested copy of Registration Certificate ( RC) pertaining to the vehicle No. AP 04G . It envisaging the registered owner of the vehicle was Krishna Prasad CH son of Satyanarayana – complainant . Hence there appears any merit and force in the contentions of the opposite party that the said vehicle still under the ownership of the M/S . Reliance Infocom Limited .
7. The Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of Motor Vehicle Insurance Covernote bearing No. 0128899 for an unspecified vehicle infavour of Reliance Infocom Limited envisaging the insurance cover for the period from 5-2-2004 midnight to 4-2-2005 midnight . For want of particulars to which number of the vehicle it pertains to or its engine and chasis number it pertains to this Ex.A1 remains of any much reliance for consideration in this case.
8. The Ex.A2 consisting of motor vehicle insurance cover note No. /2K 431306 dated 3-2-2005 and certificate cum policy schedule bearing No. 2005/4148 covering the period of insurance from 5-2-2005 to 4-2-2006 to Maruthi Alto bearing registered No. AP 04G -4301 stands in the name of the complainant . As the RC of the said vehicle vide Ex.A12 stands in the name of the complainant as its owner and as no insurance policy will be issued by the insurance company without verifying and satisfying itself with such documentary record which will envisage the privy of the insured with the vehicle under insurance and the Ex.A12 envisages the ownership of the complainant to said vehicle mentioned therein it is to be believed that the opposite party has issued the Ex.A2 infavour of the complainant after satisfying itself with the ownership of the complainant to the vehicle covered under said insurance Ex.A2 , especially when it has allowed 20% non claim bonus also in the premium payable for insurance of the vehicle in Ex.A2 and so there appears hardly any truth in the contentions of the opposite party that the Ex.A2 was obtained by complainant either by fraud or on misrepresentation of any relevant fact considerable for issuance of said policy and so the opposite party by its above stated implied conduct is also estopped from taking any such plea for any shelter for evading liability of insurance.
9. As there being any dispute from the opposite party questioning the bonafidess of the alleged incurred expenditure of complainant in getting the insured vehicle under accident repaired vide particulars mentioned in Ex.A6 – retail cash memo running in 4 papers and the worth whileness of survey report and photographs in Ex.A8 and the survey’s bill dated 20-6-2006 in Ex.A7 , the Ex.A6 to A8 remains unrebutted and thereby requiring any of its further proof to hold the entitleness of the complainant for amounts shown there under at the liability of the opposite party .
10. In the same way as the point of dispute from the opposite party side is only on a sole point of complainants insurable interest and not anything else , the job estimates appearing in Ex.A10 and A11 relating to the vehicle covered under said insurance , they require any further proof from the complainant side to hold the entitleness of the amounts shown there under in favour of the complainant at the liability of the opposite party under Ex.A2.
11. In the circumstances discussed above as there appears every bonafidees in the conduct of the opposite party in issuing Ex.A3 and A5 repudiating the claim of the complainant ignoring the Ex.A9 and representation of complainant in Ex.A4 as to the incurred expenditure for repairing the accident vehicle and said conduct of the opposite party in repudiating claim of the complainant being not remaining justified the opposite party remains at deficiency of service to the complainant in settling the claim and there by at the lialbity to make good of the insurable interest of the complainant under Ex.A2 for the incurred expenditure of Rs. 63,971/- .
12. The claim of the complainant for Rs.27,000/- towards incurred expenditure for engaging taxi during 5-1-2006 to 5-4-2006 i.e, repair period of the vehicle – is rejected for want of any cogent proof such as any receipt or the affidavit of the taxi driver whose taxi was engaged.
13. As there appears any proportionateness in the incurred expenditure for attending repair of the insured vehicle under accident and the amount of Rs.25,000/- claimed towards mental agony etc ., an amount of Rs.10,000/- is allowed as just compensation towards said mental agony etc., ensued to the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite party in improper repudiation of the complainants claim.
14. As there appears exorbitancy in claim of Rs.10,000/- as cost of this case , in the circumstances of the case an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is held at the liability of the opposite party as a justifiable amount payable to the complainant towards the cost of the case as complainant was constrained to resort to the forum for redressal against the improper repudiation of his claim .
15. The expenditure of Rs.2,400/- claimed by the complainant towards the fees paid to the surveyor as being substantiated by the bill in Ex.A7 the said claim is allowed in favor of the complainant at the liability of the opposite party .
16. The dispute as to the no insurable interest to the complainant in the circumstances of the case being without any substance and force , the decision cited by the learned counsel by the opposite party reported in 2008 (3) ALT Pg.9 (SC) CPA has any relevant application for its appreciation to the facts and circumstances of this case.
17. Consequently, the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.63,971/- towards the incurred expenditure of complainant in attending the repairs of accident vehicle under insurance liability under Ex.A2, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony , Rs.2,400/- as fess paid to surveyor and Rs.2,000/-as cost of the cas e within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. In default the supra stated award payable by the opposite party to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 11th day of December, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Motor Vehicle Insurance Covernote No.0128899.
Ex.A2. Motor vehicle insurance covernote issued by the OP.No.2 K 431306 in 2 papers.
Ex.A3. Letter dated 09-01-2006 issued by the opposite party
as to “No claim”.
Ex.A4. Letter dated 27-03-2006 of complainant to OP along
with acknowledgement.
Ex.A5. Reply of OP dated 03-04-2006 to Ex.A4.
Ex.A6. Retail cash memo dated 14-04-2006 of MSA Motors issued to
Complainant in 4 papers.
Ex.A7. Survey bill dated 20-06-2006 for Rs.2,400/-.
Ex.A8. Survey report dated 20-06-2006 with bunch of photos and
Negatives.
Ex.A9. Letter dated 06-01-2006 to addressed to OP.
Ex.A10. Xerox to the complainant job estimate dated 06-01-2006 of MSA Motors.
Ex.A11. Xerox copy of job estimate as to labour and services.
Ex.A12. Attested Xerox copy of registration certificate pertaining to
Complainant .
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on
