Date of Filing     :24-01-2013

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:08-04-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the  8^th day of   April, 2015

          PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                             Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, Member.

C.C.No.12/2013

Vatambedu Munikumar,

S/o.Muni Krishnaiah,

Hindu, Aged 34 years,

R/o.Kamakshi Nagar, Gudur,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                                                                 ..… Complainant       

                                                                           Vs.

                                                             .   

            This complaint coming on 30-03-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri V. Upendra Rao, advocate for the complainant and Sri E.V.Rami Reddy, advocate for the opposite party  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

                    The brief averments of the  complaint are as follows:

            The complainant purchased a vehicle  AP 26 AA 4545  from V. Rama Chandra Reddy of Nellore.  The vehicle  was insured with the opposite party for the period  from .26-10-2010  to 25-10-2011.  The complainant intimated the purchase of the vehicle to the opposite party and requested it  to change the policy in his name.  The vehicle  was involved in an accident on           26-02-2011 near Naidupeta.  A criminal case was registered in crime No.25/2011 by the Naidupet police.  The vehicle was handedover to M.G.Brothers Industries Private Limited, Nellore for repairs.  The complainant  spent Rs.1,52,208-34ps. for the repairs.  The opposite party has to pay the above amount, but he did not pay.  The  complainant has to get about Rs.2,12,723-34ps. towards the repairing charges.  The opposite party committed a deficiency of service by not paying the above amount to the complainant.   The complainant got issued a legal notice, to which the opposite party  gave a reply with untenable allegations.  Hence, the complaint for refund of the amount of repair charges with costs, interest and compensation.

            2.         The brief  averments of the written version of the opposite party are as follows:

                                                            The complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations made in the complaint are not correct.  The complainant is not a  consumer.  The opposite party is not aware of the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant.  The opposite party has no contract of the insurance  with the complainant.  The vehicle AP 26 AA 4545  was covered by the insurance of the opposite party during the period  from 26-10-2010 to 25-10-2011.  The complainant  has not intimated the purchase of the vehicle to the opposite party as alleged.  The vehicle was not involved in an accident. The complainant did not incur an amount of Rs.2,12,723-34ps. as alleged.  There is no deficiency of service.  This Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

            3.         Now the point for consideration is “whether the opposite party committed a deficiency of service?”

            4.         The complainant has not filed his affidavit.  On behalf of the opposite party, the Assistant Manager filed his affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B5.

            5.         POINT:  The complainant has not filed  affidavit nor documents.  The insurance coverage of the vehicle by the opposite party was admitted as per Ex.B1.  Ex.B2 is the estimation given by the repairer  with regard to the  repairing charges.  A sum of Rs.1,71,933/- was charged by the work shop.  Ex.B3 is the report of the surveyor.  In the report of the surveyor, the date of the accident, as well as, the registration of the crime by the concerned police with regard to the accident were mentioned in the first page.  This establishes  the damage to the vehicle in the accident as pleaded by the  claimant in the petition.  In the  status history of the surveyor’s report (Ex.B3), it was mentioned that one V. Rama Chandra Reddy  was the original owner but  as per the registration certificate registered owner of the vehicle is the complainant.  This shows that the present owner of the vehicle is the complainant.   The surveyor estimated the damages at Rs.80,000/-.  The surveyor recommended repudiation of the claim, as  there is no contract of insurance between the complainant  and the opposite party.

6.         However,  the law on the point is  clear.  The insurance is  for the vehicle  and for the damages to it.  It covers the risk in case of the accidents.  Admittedly, the  vehicle  of the complainant met with an accident.  From the document filed by the opposite party, the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle.  It is not the case of the opposite party that the original insurer namely V. Rama Chandra Reddy filed a rival claim with regard to the same accident.  Therefore,  this Forum is of the view that  the repudiation of the  vehicle by the opposite party is incorrect.  The opposite party also filed Ex.B4, a certificate of the registration, wherein the complainant  is shown as the present owner of the vehicle.  The accident occurred  during the period of the insurance policy.  The repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is not valid.  The same amounts to deficiency of service.  As regard the damages, this Forum is inclined to rely upon the report of the surveyor.  As such, the damages mentioned by the surveyor in his report (Ex.B3)  (Rs.80,000/-) are being granted to the complainant with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint till realization and costs of Rs.2,000/-.  The point is held accordingly.

            7.         In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the opposite party to pay Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only)  with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint till  realization and costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  8^th day of  April, 2015.

           MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

-Nil-

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

-Nil-

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

Copies to:

Date when free copy was issued: