BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday the 29th day of September, 2011
C.C.No.03/2011
Between:
G.Hari Chandran, S/o G.Pichaiah,
R/o H.No.5-187, Near Lorry Union Office, Bethamcherla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager,
4th floor, Alankar Plaza, Park Road,Kurnool-518 001.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Deputy Manager,
4th floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids Road,Hyderabad-500 001. ...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant and opposite party No.1 called absent and Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)
C.C. No.03/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.8,50,000/- towards the damages caused to the lorry of complainant with interest at 12% per annum from, 26.01.2010 the date of damages caused in fire accident;
- To award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties
- To award costs of Rs.30,000/-;
- To pass such other reliefs as the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant was the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 X 5199 which was insured with opposite party No.1 under the policy bearing No.1808792334001969 and the same was valid from 08-10-2009 to 07-10-2010 covering the own damage risk of the vehicle for Rs.8,50,000/- which was the value of the vehicle. On 26-01-2010 in the night the said lorry left Dalmia Cement Factory situated at Thalamanchipatnam Village of Bellary with load of Cement bags. Then at about 11-00 P.M., when the said vehicle was proceeding between Hanumanthugundam Nagisetty Palli Village within the limits of Kolimigundla Police Station, fire accident took place accidentally and the lorry got fired and burnt and completely damaged. With regard to fire accident report was given to police and so as a case in Crime No.12/2010 of Kolimigundla P.S., was registered.
Immediately after the fire accident the same was informed to opposite parties by the complainant by submitting claim form and other relevant documents claiming Rs.8,50,000/- on total loss basis. One E.Mukund was appointed as a surveyor by the opposite parties to assess the loss of vehicle and he has submitted his report also. In spite of repeated oral requests made by the complainant, the opposite parties did not settle the claim, so the complainant got issued legal notice dated 14-06-2010 to opposite parties and requesting them to settle the claim, but the opposite party did not give reply so far. So the non-settlement of the claim even after lapse of six months amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is filed.
3. Opposite party No.1 set exparte.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant was the owner of lorry bearing No.AP21 X 5199 and the same was insured with this opposite party for the insured declared value of Rs.8,50,000/- for the period of 08-10-2009 to 07-10-2010 vide policy bearing No.1808792334001969. The insured vehicle met with fire accident on 26-01-2010 at Hanumanthugundam Nagisetty Palli Village within the limits of Kolimigundla Police Station in Kurnool District. The complainant informed the same to the opposite parties and opposite party arranged an independent surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss of damages caused to the insured vehicle and the said surveyor submitted his report to this opposite party company assessing the net loss of Rs.6,71,500/- after deducting the salvage value and the policy loss as per the policy terms and conditions. The opposite parties agreed to settle the said amount and requested him to submit some of the relevant documents, but the complainant refused to receive the same and he demanded to pay the insured declared value of Rs.8,50,000/-. In spite of reminders the complainant did not respond. On 15-03-2011 the opposite party got issued a final notice to the complainant informing the same. Hence this opposite party is unable to settle the claim. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party No.2 Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS 1 and 2:- Admittedly the complainant was the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 X 5199. The complainant insured his vehicle with opposite parties under the policy Ex.A1 (Ex.B1) for the insured declared value of Rs.8,50,000/- for the period 08-10-2009 to 07-10-2010 vide policy bearing No. 1808792334001969 and the policy was in force on the date of the accident on 26-01-2010. Regarding the fire accident in which the said vehicle was damaged a case in Crime No.12/2010 of Kolimigundla Police Station was registered under Ex.A2. Admittedly the complainant made a claim in fire accident that took place on 26-01-2010 and the opposite party appointed an independent surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss of damages caused to the insured vehicle and the said surveyor assessing the net loss of Rs.6,71,000/- after deducting salvage value and policy loss in page No.8 para 17 under Ex.B2.
8. The case of the complainant is that in Ex.A1 (Ex.B1) policy itself the value of the vehicle was shown as Rs.8,50,000/- which was accepted by the insurer. As the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant, he got issued Ex.A3 legal notice dated 14-06-2010, it was served on them under Ex.A4 courier receipt dated 14-06-2010 and Ex.A5 the postal acknowledgement dated 17-06-2010, but they did not responded. After the filing of the case, the complainant got issued another notice Ex.A6 dated 21-01-2011 which was acknowledged by the opposite party under Ex.A7 dated 22-01-2011 requesting them to dispose of the damage vehicle, which was parked in the service center at Kurnool. As the opposite parties did not take any steps to dispose the said vehicle, the complainant himself sold away the vehicle to avoid parking charges and further deteriorating the value of salvage of the damaged vehicle for scrap to it purchased under Ex.A8 for Rs.75,000/- and received the same under Ex.A8. The opposite party No.2 submits that as per the final survey report the opposite parties agreed to settle the said amount and requested him to submit some of the relevant documents, inspite of the reminders, on 15-03-2011 opposite party got issued a final notice Ex.B3 to the complainant informing the same. Ex.B2 is the survey report in page No.8 and para 17 under the column total loss cash loss net of salvage settlement summary, the insured negotiated salvage is shown at Rs.1,80,000/-. The said surveyor assessing the net loss of Rs.6,71,500/-, after deducting salvage and policy loss as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that since the surveyor’s report is arbitrary and bias withregard to assessing the salvage value of the vehicle, surveyor report withregard to assessment of loss is to be ignored. To support his contention he relied on decisions report in 2009 (3) ACJ Page 1729 SC and 2011 (3) CPR Page 82 NC New India assurance company limited as Pradeep Kumar 2009 (3) ACJ Page 1729. In this case the Honourable S.C dismissed an appeal and all the three Consumer Fora accepted the complainants claim and did not accept the survey reports because the complainant filed affidavits of the persons from whom the spare parts were purchased, repair work was got done and charges paid to them. So far as the case in hand is concerned the complainant has not filed affidavit of the purchaser, who purchased his damaged vehicle. Mere receipt of amount is not sufficient. In the absence of an affidavit of the purchaser we are inclined to hold that the assessment given by the surveyor under Ex.B2 with regard to value of the salvage of the vehicle at Rs.1,80,000/- can be accepted we are in a view that the surveyor report is not arbitrary and not bias. As per Ex.B2 the vehicle is three years and three months old as on the date of loss. The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that, if the insurer did not specify what documents was required and what formalities not fulfilled the opposite parties is trying to avoid payments. In decision reported in 2011 (3) CPJ 220 in that case the Honourable Delhi State Commission held that the demand of re-inspection of vehicle by the opposite party was not justified and not filed required documents are vague to avoid the payment. The facts of that case is not applicable to this case. Every case is having its own facts and circumstances. In present case the opposite party is agreed to pay an amount as per the survey report. No ambiguity is found in the report of the surveyor. The report of the surveyor must be given due to weight. Taking into consideration the net loss assessed by the surveyor the complainant is awarded the said amount of Rs.6,71,500/-. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties by not settle the claim within reasonable time.
9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.6,71,500/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e., 10-01-2011 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 29th day of September, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Policy No.1808792334001969.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.12/2010 of Kolimigundla
Police Station dated 27-01-2010.
Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice dated 14-06-2010.
Ex.A4 Courier receipt dated 14-06-2010.
Ex.A5 Postal Acknowledgement dated 17-06-2010.
Ex.A6 Office copy of legal notice dated 21-01-2011 along with postal receipts.
Ex.A7 Postal acknowledgement dated 22-01-2011.
Ex.A8 Certificate of damaged vehicle No.AP21X 5199 for Rs.75,000/- dated 04-05-2011.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Policy No.1808792334001969.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Motor Surveyors report.
Ex.B3 Office copy of registered final notice dated 15-03-2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
