2. The Manager/Proprietor,

    Garapati Auto Ventures Pvt. Ltd.,

    Mahanadu Road, Auto Nagar,  

    Vijayawada, Krishna District.                        … Opposite Parties

        This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      31-05-11 in the presence of Sri V.Ganesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for OP1,                  Sri J.R.Satyanarayana Prasad, advocate for OP2, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions on 1^st opposite party to pay the risk amount covered under policy, and Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony by both the opposite parties to the complainant.

2.      The brief facts of complaint in brief are as follows:  

                The complainant has taken an accident risk policy bearing No.432303/31/2009/273 dt.26-05-08 in connection with his vehicle Mahindra and Mahindra Scorpio 2.6 SLX CRDE (7/8 Seater) chassis No.62c69602 and engine No.64c19841 with vehicle bearing No.AP07 AF 222 for the period covered from 26-05-08 to mid night of             25-05-09.  The complainant’s vehicle referred supra met with an accident on 26-04-09 and got damaged.  In order to get repairs for the said vehicle, the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party, who estimated the costs at Rs.1,60,000/-.  The complainant delivered the said vehicle at 2^nd opposite party workshop voluntarily on 27-04-09 for repairs. 

                The complainant applied for the risk of policy with the 1^st opposite party vide claim No.432303/31/2010/000004, who on receipt of application sent a letter dt.06-10-09 to the complainant requesting him to submit FIR within 10 days after receipt of letter.  The complainant thereafter submitted required documents to the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties did not make any arrangement to pay the risk amount to the complainant. 

                The complainant is eaking livelihood by plying his vehicle referred supra and he is suffering a lot due to lack of money and if the risk amount is paid to him, his family members will come out of starvation.  The opposite parties have committed deficiency of service by not paying the risk amount to the complainant.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The 1^st opposite party filed its version, which is brief as follows:

                It is alleged that the complainant is eaking out his livelihood by plying his vehicle referred supra on hire and he is suffering a lot due to lack of money i.e., the complainant is not entitled to pay any compensation from this opposite party.  The Scorpio car bearing No.AP 07AF 0222 of the complainant is a private car and it is insured with this opposite party under Private Car Package Policy.  As per terms and conditions of policy, the vehicle is to be used for private and professional purpose.   The policy specifically reads as follows:

“Limitations as to use:

Warranties:

                The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than a) Hire or Reward  b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage) c) Organized racing d) Pace making  e) Speed testing  f) Reliability Trials  g) Use in connection with Motor Trade.”

                The opposite party after receipt of intimation about the alleged loss caused to the vehicle appointed Mr.A.S.Mallikharjuna Rao, Spot Surveyor  and appointed D.Venugopala Reddy, Surveyor and Loss Assessor (Licensed Surveyor) to assess the damages.  He visited the workshop of 2^nd opposite party and finally assessed the damage at Rs.64,236/-.  The opposite party requested to submit the required documents more particularly, the cash receipt showing the payment of repair charges which was allegedly paid to the 2^nd opposite party.  But the complainant did not submit the same and on account of non receipt of complainant from the complainant, the payment of compensation amount is pending.  The complainant instead of taking steps to obtain the said cash receipt from the 2^nd opposite party hastily filed this complaint.  The complaint is guilty of suppressio vari and suggesio false and the complaint is not maintainable.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.       

4.      The 2^nd opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

                The complainant brought accident vehicle bearing No.AP07 AF 222 on 27-04-09 to the garage of this opposite party at Vijayawada in a damaged condition.  On 05-05-09, the complainant asked the 2^nd opposite party to attend the repairs of vehicle and also executed an agreement in favour of 2^nd opposite party on the same day.  On          06-05-09, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as a advance for the repairs to this opposite party.  The repair was completed on            29-05-09 by the 2^nd opposite party and on the same day, and the same day the complainant received the vehicle in full condition after paying repair charges at Vijayawada without any objections after acknowledging receipt of repaired vehicle.  The insurance agreement is between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party has no connection with the said alleged insurance policy.  Moreover the vehicle was handed over to this opposite party at Vijayawada and repairs are carried over at Vijayawada.  Thus this Forum has no jurisdiction.  Hence, the complainant unnecessarily impleaded the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.             The complainant filed a memo not pressing the claim against 2^nd opposite party.  Hence, clam against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.      

6.             The complainant and both the opposite parties have filed their respective affidavits.  Ex.A1 to A10 on behalf of complainant, Ex.B1 to B3 on behalf of 1^st opposite party and Ex.B4 on behalf of 2^nd opposite party were marked .

8.     Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

9.      POINT No.1

                The complainant’s vehicle Scorpio bearing No.AP07AF0 222 is insured under Private Car Package Policy with 1^st opposite party.  The complainant is his complaint submitted that he is eaking out his livelihood by plying his vehicle referred supra.  The terms and conditions of policy (Ex.A1) have laid down some limitations as to use of vehicle, which are as follows:

Limitations as to use:

Warranties:

                   The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than a) Hire or Reward  b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage) c) Organized racing d) Pace making  e) Speed testing  f) Reliability Trials  g) Use in connection with Motor Trade.

10.           It is clear in the above matter that the policy will not cover the vehicle, if it is used for hire or reward.  The complainant himself accepted in his complaint that he is eaking his livelihood by plying the vehicle, which is nothing but hiring the vehicle which is against the terms and conditions of policy.  The 1^st opposite party filed the following citation in support of his contention:

                   2007 (1) CPR 230 (NC) between Jagdeesh Singh Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, where the National Commission, New Delhi observed where vehicle was found being used against limitation as to the use, insurance company would be justified in repudiation of claim for theft of vehicle.   

11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion and the citation referred above, the Forum opined that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

12.    POINT No.2

                Since the vehicle is being used for hire, the complainant is not eligible to receive any policy amount or compensation from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant filed a memo not pressing the claim against the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, the complaint against 2^nd opposite party is also dismissed. 

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 8^th day of June, 2011.     

                      Sd/- x x x                                                        Sd/- x x x      

          MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For  opposite parties:

                                                                                                Sd/- x x x

                                                                               PRESIDENT