FA.No.71/2011 against C.C.No.77/2009 District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy.

Between

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance

Co. Ltd., H.No.6-4-8, Vijetha Sanjivini

Apartments, 1^st floor, Opp:Gandhi Hospital

Musheerabad, Hyderabad.                                             ..Appellant/

                                                                                  O.P

                And

P.Krishnaiah, S/o.Garaiah @ Galaiah

Aged 35 years, Occ:Agriculture,

R/o.Usirkapally Village, Regode Mandal,

Medak District.                                                            Respondent/

                                                                                Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant               :  Mr.Ramachandra Reddy Gadi

Counsel for the Respondent           :  M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

          AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

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

***

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.77/2009 on the file of District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy, opposite party preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, a farmer, is having patta lands at Usirkapally  village, Regode Mandal, Medak District and purchased a tractor bearing Engine No.511526400993 and Chasis No.911615155180 under Hypothecation agreeemnt with DCCB Branch, Jogipet.  The complainant insured the said vehicle with the opposite party vide policy No.004782343004258 valid from 18-3-2009 to 17-3-2010 for agriculture.  The complainant submitted that on 24-4-2009, when he was ploughing his land, the battery got heated and the tractor caught fire and was burnt completely.  The complainant submitted tht he immediately informed the said fact  to the opposite party party and they registered a claim vide No.2091162533 and sent a surveyor for inspection of the damaged vehicle by name K.V.Ramana, who inspected the vehicle and estimated the damage to a tune of Rs.1,42,250/- and shifted the damaged vehcile to the company show room for attending repairs and also informed that the estimate may  increase after the engine is opened at the time of repairs.  The complainant submitted that after shifting the vehcile to the showroom of the opposite party, they have not settled the claim nor attended to the repairs inspite of repeated requests.  Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 23-9-2009 but there was no reply.  The complainant submitted that he also gave a police complaint and that the police also conducted panchanama.  He further submits that as on the date of the accident, the policy is in force but the opposite party failed to settle the policy due to which he sustained a loss to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- which is clear deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay the repairing charges of the damaged tractor together with Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and costs.

        Opposite party filed counter resisting the complaint.  It admitted that the complainant obtained Miscellaneous and speical type of vehicle package policy vaid from 18-3-2009 to 17-3-2010 and that the liability of it is subject to various terms and conditions, exclusions, limitations and depreciation noted in the policy and due compliance of the insured.  Opposite party submitted that on 18-7-2009 they received claim intimation from the complainant about fire but the claim was lodged only on 23-7-2009, mentioning the date of loss as 25-6-2009 but as per the complainant, the date of loss is 24-4-2009 and the complainant mis-represented to the opposite party and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, after the accident, the complainant has to inform the opposite party immediately  but he informed belatedly on 18-7-2009 after lapse of two months.  Opposite party deputed an independent surveyor to assess the loss and submit other related documents.  Opposite party submitted that insurance is a contract of indemnity and as per the Indian Contract Act, any violation by any parties, the contract becomes void and the insurance company would not be liable to the claim.  Opposite party alleged that the complaint is premature and the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as he did not furnish the claim form and driving license and extract of registration certificate and permit of tractor and hence they are unable to proceed with the matter.  The amount of Rs.1,42,250/- sought by the complainant was towards repair and not assessed by the insurance surveyor and the estimate copy was brought into existence.  Opposite party futher submitted that they appointed an investigator and the investigation report revealed that the accident occurred on 24-4-2009 and the police conducted panchanama on 25-6-2009  which creates doubts about the accident and its genuineness as there was no complaint to the police and only after two months, they conducted panchanama and submitted that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

        Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A25 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,42,250/- towards damaged tractor together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of notice i.e. 23-9-2009 till realization  together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

        The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased a tractor which was insured with the opposite party for the period 18-3-2009 to 17-3-2010 as evidenced under Ex.A6.  It is the complainant’s case that the tractor caught fire and was burnt completely.  A surveyor was appointed who assessed the damage.  Ex.A11 is the estimation for Rs.1,42,250/-.  It is not in dispute that the tractor met with a fire accident but it is the case of the appellant/opposite party that when the accident occurred on 24-4-2009, the opposite party was informed on 18-7-2009 and a claim was made on 23-7-2009 and a notice was issued on 23-9-2009.  The contention of the appellant/opposite party that the tractor was not having certificate of registration and also the driver did not have a driving license is unsustainable as there are no grounds to explain as to how such a vehicle was insured without registration certificate and morever Ex.A24 is the driving license of the said driver.  It is also pertinent to note that the opposite party did not file any survey report.  The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Exs.A12 to A22 which are the bills filed by the complainant total to Rs.70,147/- whereas the District Forum allowed the complaint for Rs.1,42,250/-.  We find force in this contention as a brief perusal of the bills show that the repairs were carried out for Rs.70,417/- only.  Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the opposite party to pay Rs.70,417/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 23-9-2009 till the date of realization while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum.

        In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the opposite party to pay Rs.70, 417/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 23-9-2009 till the date of realization while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum.

                                                        Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                             Dt.06-9-2012