BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.313/2013  against CC.No.63/2012 District Consumer Forum Srikakulam.

Between:

1. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

    Rep., by its Manager, Rajam,

    Srikakulam Road, Srikakulam District.

2. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

     D.No.43-18-17, Guda Plaza,

     Rep by it’s Manager, Venkataraju Nagar,

     Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

3. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

    (A joint Venture with Sanlam, South Africa),

     Rep. by it’s General Manager, Jaipur,

     E-8, EPIP RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302022.

                                                                        …Appellant/Opposite parties 1 to 3

And

Potnuru Sankara Rao, S/o. Late Gaddeyya,

Hindu, age 56 years, Business,

Santha Kaviti Village and Mandal,

Srikakulam District.

                  …Respondent/Complainant..

Counsel for the Appellants       :  M/s.K.Maheswara Rao 

Counsel for the Respondent    :   M/s.Aravala Rama Rao. 

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN .

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Gopalakrishna Tamada, Hon’ble President)

*******   

The opposite parties in C.C.No.63/2012 on the file of District Forum at  Srikakulam, are the appellants and this appeal is preferred against the order dated 03.10.2012, whereby the said Forum awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.2,000/-towards costs and Rs.1,000/-towards advocate’s fee to the complainant.

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as mentioned in the complaint before the District Forum.

The brief facts as per the pleadings are as under: 

The complainant’s sister by name Smt.N.Koteswari W/o.N.Vital is the original owner of Maruthi Wagon – R car bearing No.AP 31 AB 2527 and the said vehicle was insured with the 2ndopposite party for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.5,307/- was paid towards premium and the risk is covered for the period commencing from 14.10.2009 to 13.10.2010.  It appears that the complainant purchased the said vehicle for a valid consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- from his sister and the ownership of the said vehicle was transferred from Smt.N.Koteswari to the complainant. However, it appears that the policy was not transferred.  When the complainant was driving the said vehicle and proceedings towards Visakhapatnam on 20.07.2010 it met with an accident and on account of which the said vehicle was damaged.  When the said fact was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party, he deputed his surveyor for the purpose of inspection of the said vehicle.  During the course of inspection, it appears that the surveyor and the technician came to know the fact that though the vehicle was transferred from the original owner to the complainant, the insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the complainant and in those circumstances, the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant stating that the there is no privity of contract between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant and as such  the amount of compensation or damages cannot be paid to the complainant.  In those circumstances,  he approached the District Forum at Srikakulam and filed the said C.C.

            The same was opposed by the opposite parties admitting the facts.  However, according to them there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party and as such the claim cannot be settled. 

The District Forum at Srikakulam having considered the entire material on record including Exs.A.1 to A.13 marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B.1 to B.8 marked on behalf of the opposite parties came to the conclusion that there is no privity of contract between the parties.  However taking into account the facts that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd opposite party, vehicle met with an accident and the mechanic assessed the damages at Rs.90,000/- awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- and it also observed that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.  Of course, it also awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs and Rs.1,000/- towards advocate’s fee.

The said order as stated supra, is challenged in this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties filed his written arguments.  The only contention according to the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no privity of contract between the parties and in those circumstances the opposite parties i.e. the appellants need not pay any compensation to the complainant.  We are in total agreement with the said submission.  When there is no privity of contract between the parties definitely the opposite parties need not pay any amount towards compensation.  In fact the District Forum also came to the conclusion that there is no privity of contract between the parties ad in those circumstances only it refused to award any compensation as claimed by the complainant.  However, taking various other circumstances into consideration i.e. insurance of the vehicle with the 2nd appellant i.e. 2nd opposite party, accident of the vehicle, damages sustained by the vehicle, the District Forum awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- which in our considered view is perfectly justified. 

In those circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.     

____________________________

                                                                               (PRESIDENT)

___________________________

                                                                                (MEMBER)

                                                                                DATE:21.02.2014.

Vvr.