BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1495/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.97/2006 DISTRICT FORUM, SRIKAKULAM.
Between:
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager
Opposite Surya Mahal,
Srikakulam Town and District. Appellant/
Opp.party No.1
And
1. Palla Venkata Ramana, S/o.late Krishna Rao,
Aged about 42 years, Narsipuram
Street, Kasibugga, Palasa Mandal,
Srikakulam District. Respondent/
Complainant
2. Smt.Karri Anjamma, W/o.Yogeswara Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
C/o.K.Ramamurthy,
Thurakalapeta Village, Kotha
Agraharam Post, Nandigam Mandal,
Srikakulam District. Respondent/
Opp.party No.2
3. Smt.Bammidi Meenakshi W/o.Gopala Rao,
Aged about 36 years, C/o.B.Saradhi
Lakshmipuram Village, Brahamanataria Post,
Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. Respondent/
Opp.party No.3.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.R.Brizmohan Singh
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.A.Ramarao.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
(Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member.)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.97/2006 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out are that complainant Smt.P.Kameswari purchased a Tractor cum Trailor AP 30U 2372 with engine No.NCPW 1397 and insured the tractor for Rs.3,35,000/- and trailor for Rs.91,000/- with opposite party no.1 under policy bearing No.433201/200573517 with effect from 28-1-2005 to 27-1-2006. The complainant’s mother died on 08-11-2005 and the same was informed to opposite party no.1 over phone and under certificate of posting on 23-11-2005 and requested the opposite party No.1 to transfer the policy in favour of the complainant. In the meanwhile the tractor cum trailor met with an accident on 13-1-2005 and it was damaged completely and the complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1 who deputed a surveyor to inspect the vehicle and the accident spot and the complainant was instructed to take the tractor to Mahindra Show Room i.e. Sri Rama Auto Service, Srikakulam for estimation of damage and they estimated the loss at Rs.2,28,989/- and the surveyor also estimated the same. It is the case of the complainant that he submitted the claim form along with relevant documents but opposite party No.1 has not paid the amount till today and the tractor was kept idle in the show room without effecting repairs to the same and the complainant has no financial capacity to repair the damaged vehicle. The complainant further submitted that they have taken finance from Allahabad bank with an agreed rate of interest of 10.5% p.a. and is not able to pay the instalments and also interest of Rs.2,700/- per month to the bank and suffering loss of income of Rs.15,000/- per month and the opposite party No.1 is not paying the insured amount and so he got issued a letter dated 27-4-2006 to settle the claim with interest and thereafter got issued a legal notice dated 29-5-2006 and failed to give any reply. Hence the complaint for a direction to party No.1 to pay Rs.2,28,989/- towards the insured accident vehicle claim together with interest at 24% p.a. from 01-6-2006 till the date of realization or to pay Rs.3,35,000/- towards the cost of the insured amount of the damaged tractor together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-
Opposite party No.1 admitted insuring the tractor with trailor AP 30U 2372 from 28-1-2005 to 27-1-2006 by its owner Smt.Paila Kameswari and contended that it came to know about the accident on 12-1-2006 and the same was not signed by the policy holder. It further submitted that it came to know about the death of the owner-cum policy holder by notices dated 29-5-2006 and 10-7-2006 and the fact of the death of the insurer was not mentioned in the report of the accident duly signed by the complainant. Opposite party No.1 submitted that since the death of the insured was informed by way of the above notices, the contract of insurance ceased and there was no contract of insurance policy with effect from 08-11-2005 in respect of the Tractor cum Trailor and the complainant is not entitled to the ownership of the said tractor cum trailor and it was in the name of the policy holder and on the event of her death, the complainant should abide by the rule provided under GR 17 and as the complainant has not complied with GR 17, he is not entitled to claim Rs.2,28,989/-. It further submitted after intimation of the accident on 12-1-2006 by the complainant, they deputed a spot surveyor, T.Srimannarayana, for spot survey and he submitted a report on 19-1-2006 assessing at Rs.1,79, 275/- from Sri Ram Auto Service and as the estimation repairs exceeds the financial authority of opposite part No.1, they referred the matter to Divisional Office for final survey. The Divisional Officer appointed another surveyor, Smt.G.Durga Prasad for final survey and he assessed the loss for Rs.1,65,010-35 ps. and submitted the report on 9-2-2005. They submitted that there is no cause of action of action and the complaint is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A14 and B1 to B5 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.2,28,989/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from 19-9-2006 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party no.1 preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant’s mother Smt.P.Kameswari purchased a tractor cum trailor and insured the same with the opposite party for Rs.3,35,000/-, the policy period being from 28-1-2005 to 27-1-2006. It is the case of the complainant that the insured i.e. his mother died on 08-11-2005 and the same was informed to the opposite party on 23-11-2005 vide certificate of posting, the photo copy of which has been filed as Ex.A4. On 13-1-2006 the tractor cum trailor met with an accident and when the complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1, a surveyor was appointed and the first surveyor assessed the damage at Rs2,28,989/- and it is also not in dispute that a second surveyor was appointed who also submitted his report for a net loss amount of Rs.1,68,010/-. It is the case of the complainant that he has taken an estimate from Sri Ram Auto Service vide Ex.A8 and the tractor was insured for an amount of Rs.3,35,000/- and hence he is entitled for that amount. The complainant filed the photo copy of the letter 23-11-2005 and also the original copy of certificate of posting Ex.A5 to evidence that he has informed the opposite party No.1 on 23-11-2005 with respect to the death of his mother i.e. insured who died on 08-11-2005. It is the case of the appellant/opposite party No.1 that the claim is not payable since it was intimated for the first time that the insured died two months prior to the date of accident with a requisition to first transfer the policy in the complainant’s favour and later to pay the claim amount. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the rule provided under G.R. 17 governed by India Motor Tariff of Tariff Advisory Committee. (General Insurance, Mumbai) and contended that the complainant did not follow the rules and the death was not intimated to them and denies receipt of Ex.A5 and further contends that the appellant came to know about the disclosure of the death only after the receipt of registered notices dated 29-5-2006, Ex.A10 and 10-7-2006 Ex.A12 sent by the complainant to it. Even in the report of the accident duly signed by the complainant, the said fact of the death of the insured was not informed. It is not in dispute that the appellant/opposite party No.1 had repudiated the policy on the ground that the death of the insured was not intimated to opposite party No.1 prior to the accident. We are of the considered view that for argument sake, we construe that Ex.A5 letter sent by the complainant under certificate of posting dated 23-11-2005 has been received by opposite party No.1 informing the death of the insured which took place on 08-11-2005 still the policy has not been transferred in the name of the complainant herein as on the date of accident which is 13-1-2006. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A4 which is the letter dated 23-11-2005 on which the complainant is relying does not state anywhere that the policy is to be transferred in the name of the complainant herein thereafter also in the two months i.e. between 23-11-2005 and the date of accident i.e. 13-1-2006, there is no correspondence between the respondent/complainant and the appellant/opposite party no.1 requesting for transfer of policy in his name. It is only after the date of accident that two legal notices i.e. Exs.A10 and A12 dated 29-5-2006 and 10-7-2006 respectively were sent to appellant/opposite party No.1. When the policy itself is not in existence i.e. it has not been transferred in the name of the complainant as on the date of the accident, we are of the considered view that there is no concluded contract as on the date of the accident between the complainant and the appellant/opposite party and hence the repudiation of the appellant/opposite party no.1 is justified.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.11-6-2010
