Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/72/2011

Raja Reddy S/o M. Anantha Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri B. Balagangadhar Reddy

15 Mar 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

   Thursday, the 15^th day of March, 2012 

                                                 Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

        Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member     

         Smt. D. Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B., Member        

C.C.NO. 72  Of   2011

Between:-

Raja Reddy S/o M. Anantha Reddy, age 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-16, Hanumanwada, Marikal village, Dhanwada mandal, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                                                                … Complainant

And

Reliance General Insurance, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, H.No.4-1-327 to 337, 4^th Floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids Road, Hyderabad, represented by its Authorized Signatory.                                                                            … Opposite Party

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 6-3-2012 in the presence of Sri B. Balagangadhar Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri K. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

O R D E R

 (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)  

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident to till the date of realization to the complainant, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and for  deficiency of service besides costs of the complaint. 

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant is the owner of Indica DLE Car bearing No.AP-22/M-0783, that he has taken a comprehensive insurance policy No.1808792311002029 in respect of said car from the opposite party, and that the period of the policy is from 4-7-2009 to 3-7-2010.  While so, on 10-5-2010 on account of personal work the family members of the complainant had been to Hyderabad and one A. Ramakrishna, the driver under employment of the complainant, driving the said vehicle and after completion of the domestic works they were returning to Marikal village from Hyderabad and on the way when the vehicle reached near Rajapur village the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident as it dashed the lorry on the rear side. On a report filed the Police, Balanagar conducted Panchanama on the accident spot. The complainant had informed about the accident to the opposite party immediately. The complainant furnished to the opposite party the damage as well as mechanical charges estimated by S.S. Motors, Padmavathi Colony, Mahabubnagar to the tune of Rs.4,01,806/- under own damage claim. The vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy, as such the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation. Shockingly, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant by specifying the ground-by reason that the insured vehicle was used for hire at the material time of the accident. The complainant further submits that the insured vehicle was used for personal use of the owner at the time of the accident and was never used for hire or reward as alleged by the opposite party. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant on flimsy reason without ascertaining the factual aspects amounts to deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice. Further, due to the attitude of the opposite party the complainant is subjected to much mental pain and agony.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The opposite party filed counter admitting about issuance of comprehensive insurance policy for the vehicle in question and the complainant informed about the occurrence of the accident. It is further submitted that after verifying the documents submitted by the complainant this opposite party enquired the subject matter and after knowing the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was being used for hire in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was repudiated and the same was intimated to the complainant. Thus the petition is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.               

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On the other hand, the opposite party filed his proof affidavit and got marked Ex.B-1.  

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

    (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him?          

    (iii)  To what effect? 

6. Point No.1:- The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Indica DLE Car bearing No.AP-22/M-0783, and the complainant obtained a comprehensive insurance policy No.1808792311002029 in respect of said car from the opposite party which is valid from 4-7-2009 to 3-7-2010. It is also an admitted fact that the said vehicle met with an accident on 10-5-2010 during the subsistence of the policy issued by the opposite party and the complainant informed about the same to the opposite party immediately after the accident.

7. The case of the complainant is that on 10-5-2010 his family members had been to Hyderabad to attend to their personal works in his Indica DLE Car driven by A. Ramakrishna and after completion of the same while their family members were returning to Marikal from Hyderabad and when the vehicle reached near Rajapur village the said vehicle met with an accident as it dashed the lorry on rear side. It is the further case of the complainant that on the report filed, the Police, Balanagar conducted a Panchanama at the accident spot. It is the further case of the complainant that he informed about the accident to the opposite party immediately and he made a claim by submitting required documents. In support of his case, the complainant filed Exs.A-1 to A-7. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party as under Ex.A-6 is not justified and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle (the complainant) when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. In support of said contention the counsel for the complainant relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) CJ 544 (SC) (Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.).  

8. On the other hand, it is the contention of the opposite party that the complainant obtained the policy from the opposite party for private purpose but used the same for commercial purpose in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the complainant is not entitled for any claim. On this aspect, the opposite party except their self styled testimony no oral or documentary proof is produced. The only contention raised by the opposite party in their counter as well as affidavit evidence is that after verifying the documents submitted by the complainant it is observed that at the time of alleged accident the car in question was used for commercial purpose in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as such the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant. No credible evidence produced by the opposite party in support of said contention. In the absence of the same the said contention is not tenable. On the other hand, it is the contention of the complainant that on 10-5-2010 his family members had been to Hyderabad to attend to their personal works in his Indica DLE Car driven by A. Ramakrishna and after completion of the same while their family members were returning to Marikal from Hyderabad when the vehicle reached near Rajapur village, the said vehicle met with an accident as it dashed the lorry on rear side. The said contention of the complainant is supported by the documentary evidence Ex.A-4 Panchanama prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police, Balanagar, and the recitals of which clearly shows that the vehicle in question met with an accident while the family members of the complainant were returning to Marikal village from Hyderabad near Rajapur village on 10-5-2010 at about 3:30 a.m. Further, the opposite party not challenged the Ex.A-4 Panchanama. Further, the Exs.A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5 & A-7 also support the case of the complainant. On this aspect, the only contention of the opposite party is that it is a created story for the purpose of illegal claim, but we are unable to agree with the said contention in the absence of any oral or documentary proof produced by the opposite party on this aspect. Even the recitals of Ex.A-6 Repudiation Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant shows that after going through the documents and as per investigation report it is found that the insured vehicle is being used for hire at the material time of the accident. But the opposite party failed to produce the so called documents and investigation report in support of their case basing on which the claim of the complainant was repudiated. In the absence of the same we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant as under Ex.A-6 is not justifiable and the opposite party cannot repudiate the claim in toto. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the decision referred to above relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant and for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant has established his case and there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering service to the complainant. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.           

9. Point No.2:- In view of the finding given on point No.1, we hold that the complainant is entitled for a reasonable relief.  In the instant case the entire stand of the opposite party is that the complainant has used the vehicle for hire and in the course of that there has been an accident. Following the guidelines given in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, we are of the opinion that the opposite party cannot repudiate the claim in toto, but however we can direct the opposite party to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- even though compensation claimed is Rs.5,00,000/-. So in the facts and circumstances of this case the said sum is to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party without any interest within the stipulated period fixed.  The point is answered accordingly.  

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- without any interest within one month from the date of the present order.  However, if the opposite party delays the aforesaid payment beyond the stipulated period, then this amount will carry an interest of 9% p.a. from the date of the expiry of the fixed period till the date of actual payment, besides a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint. 

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 15^th day of March, 2012.    

 

     I agree                                                                                    I agree                                                              

 MEMBER                                   MEMBER                       PRESIDENT                 

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Party:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original R.C.  

Ex.A-2: Original Driving License.  

      Ex.A-3: Original Reliance Motor Private Car Endorsement Schedule, dt.10.2.2012.

      Ex.A-4: Copy of Panchanama, dt.10.5.2010.

      Ex.A-5: Photostat copy of Estimate.

      Ex.A-6: Copy of Repudiation Letter, dt.30.8.2010.

      Ex.A-7: Original Photographs.  

On behalf of OP:                  

Ex.B-1: Copy of Reliance Motor Private Car Endorsement Schedule, dt.10.2.2012.       

                                                                                                                   

                                                                       

                                                                        PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

1. Sri B. Balagangadhar Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri K. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.