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

Tuesday the 11^th day of October, 2011

C.C.No.01/2011

Between:

S.Md.Ismail,

S/o S.Md.Ibrahim,

#L.I.G./57, Housing Board Colony,

Kurnool City,

Kurnool District-518 002.                                        …Complainant

                                       -Vs-

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

   Represented by itsManaging Director,

   Reliance Centre,

   19 Walchand Hirachand Marg,

   Ballard Estate,

   MUMBAI-400 001.

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

   570, Rectifier House,

   Naigaum Cross Road,

   Wadala (W), MUMBAI-400 031.

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

   Represented by its Deputy Manager (Claims),

   Sagar Plaza, 4^th Floor, Abid Road,

   Abids, HYDERABAD-500 001.

4. The Branch Manager,

   Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,     

   4^th Floor, Alankar Plaza,

   Park Road, KURNOOL-518 002.             ...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M. Jaffar Hussain Baig, Advocate for complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite parties 3 and 4 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                     ORDER

                  (As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)

   C.C. No.01/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant towards the expenses incurred for repairs of his vehicle;

1. To pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony;

1. To pay Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses;

1. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- being the costs of this complaint;

1. To such other reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.                   

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle TATA  Safari bearing No. AP21 Q 4411 which was insured with opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No.4 at Kurnool.  The policy copy was issued by opposite party No.2 under the “Private Car Comprehensive Policy” No.1808782311002309 and the cover note No.108000507772.  The date of commencement of insurance of the vehicle is 31-03-2009.  On 06-05-2009 the said vehicle met with an accident and got damaged near Panyam in Kurnool District.  The complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1 and accordingly he was given claim reference No.2091108764 (Case ID: 01262538) and al surveyor by name Mr.N.Kishore was appointed for assessing the loss occurred to the vehicle in the said accident.  The said surveyor inspected the vehicle at the site of accident and submitted his report along with the relevant documents.  Subsequent to the claim, the complainant has given reminders dated19-06-2010 and 21-06-2010 and he personally visited the regional office of opposite parties at Hyderabad and submitted registration certificate of vehicle driving licence and requested for speedy processing his claim, but the opposite parties did not responded.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 02-10-2010 to the opposite parties.  Inspite of the receipt of notice, the opposite parties failed to settle the claim of the complainant.  The complainant has under gone mental agony having already incurred Rs.3,00,000/- expenditure for repairs of his damaged vehicle.  The act of opposite parties in evading to settle the claim of complainant is amounts to deficiency of service and adopting unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint is filed.

3.     Opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent.

Opposite parties 3 filed written version and opposite party No.4 adopted the same stating that the complainant is not maintainable.  The complainant was the owner of the TATA Safari vehicle bearing No. AP 21 Q 4411 and the same was insured with this opposite party for the insured declared value of Rs.4,00,000/- vide policy bearing No.1808782311002309 for the period commencing from 31-03-2009 to 30-03-2010 and the policy was in force on the date of alleged accident.  The insured vehicle met with an accident on 06-05-2009 at Sugalimetta near Panyam Village in Kurnool District and thereafter the complainant informed the same to the opposite parties appointed an independent surveyor to assess the loss of damages caused to the insured vehicle and the said surveyor submitted his final report on                25-03-2010 by assessing the net loss of Rs.2,52,000/- as per the policy terms and conditions.  The opposite parties agreed to settle the said amount and negotiated with the complainant, but the complainant refused to receive the same and he demanded more than the net loss assessed amount and he wants to insured declared value.  Inspite of reminders he did not respond for settlement. Hence this opposite party is unable to settle the claim in time. Even till to day this opposite party is ready to settle the claim as assessed by the surveyor.  There is no deficiency of service on their part and the complaint is baseless without having merits.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A12 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant and third party affidavit is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties 3 and 4 Ex.B1 and B2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite parties 3 is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS 1 and 2:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 Q 4411.  The complainant insured his vehicle with opposite parties under the policy Ex.A3 (Ex.B1) for the insured declared value of Rs.6,00,000/- for the period commencing from 31-03-2009 to 30-03-2010 vide policy bearing No.1808792311002309 and the policy was in force on the date of the accident on 06-05-2009.  Admittedly the complainant made a claim in accident that took place on 06-05-2009 and the opposite parties appointed an independent surveyor to assess the loss of damages caused to the insured vehicle.  The said surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessing the net loss of Rs.2,52,000/- under Ex.B2.

8.     The case of the complainant is that in Ex.A3 (Ex.B1) policy itself the value of the vehicle was shown as Rs.6,00,000/- which was accepted by the insurer.  As the opposite parties did not settle the claim of the complainant though the complainant send several reminders dated 19-01-2010 under Ex.A4 and 21-01-2010 under Ex.A6 and 08-04-2010 under Ex.A7 and at last he got issued legal notice dated 02-10-2010 which is marked as Ex.A8 to opposite parties 2 and 4 to settle the claim which was acknowledged by them under Ex.A9 and Ex.A10, but they did not settle the claim even after the survey report.  The opposite parties 3 and 4 submits that as per the final survey report the opposite parties agreed to settle the said amount and requested him to receive the same but he demanded more than the net loss assessed amount and he wants insured declared value, so they are unable to settle the claim of the complainant.   Ex.B2 is the survey report, the said surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs.2,52,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the surveyor’s report is not correct and contrary and he did not include the details of all parts damaged in the accident and he deliberately included several parts in the list of depreciation, which ought to have been excluded and applied excessive depreciation to the parts which have meager depreciation, so the surveyor report is not correct.   The complainant filed third party affidavit and Ex.A11 and Ex.A12 in support of his claim.  The surveyor is an independent person who has no bias.  There is no necessity for the surveyor to submit false report.  It is the surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle immediately and found the damaged parts.    Taking into consideration all the material placed on record we are of the opinion that the report of the surveyor is realiable and the assessment given by him under Ex.B2 can be accepted.  No ambiguity is found in the report of the surveyor and the report of the surveyor must be given due to weight.  The complainant is awarded to the said amount of Rs.2,52,000/-.  Subsequent  to the claim, the complainant has given several reminders Ex.A5 dated 19-01-2010 Ex.A6 21-01-2010 and Ex.A7 08-04-2010 and Ex.A8 dated 02-10-2010 a legal notice given to opposite parties 2 and  4 and same was acknowledged by them under Ex.A9 and Ex.A10.  As seen from Ex.A5 to Ex.A10 it is very clear that the opposite parties did not settle the claim within a reasonable time, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 

9.     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.2,52,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e., 22.12.2010 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs.500/-.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 11^th day of October, 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 Registration Certificate of the vehicle

AP 21 Q 4411 in the name of the complainant

dated 05-06-2008.

 Ex.A2.      Photo copy of Driving License in the name of the complainant dated 10-04-2007.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of policy No.1808782311002309

dated 31-03-2009.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of reminder by complainant through E-mail to

Reliance General Insurance Customer service unit

dated 19-01-2010.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Reply by Reliance General Insurance

customer service unit dated 19-01-2010.

Ex.A6                Photo copy of reminder by complainant through E-mail to

Reliance General Insurance customer unit

dated 21-01-2010.

Ex.A7                Photo copy of final reminder letter dated 08-04-2010.

Ex.A8                Office copy of legal notice issued by complainant to

                opposite parties 2 & 4 dated 02-10-2010

Ex.A9                Postal receipts dated 04-10-2010.

Ex.A10       Postal acknowledgement dated 05-10-2010.

Ex.A11       Photo copy of sales invoice dated 11-03-2010.

Ex.A12       Photo copy of service bill for Rs.1,02,414/-

dated 11-03-2010.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Reliance General Insurance

policy No.1808782311002309 dated 31-03-2009.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of final survey report dated 25-03-2010.

         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               :