Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/320/2012

Donka Adinarayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

B.K. Naidu

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

                   Reg. of the Complaint:04-10-2012                                                                                                                                    Date of Order:23-07-2013

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.320/2012

 

BETWEEN:

Sri Donka Adinarayana s/o Pydianna,

Hindu, aged 48 years, r/at D.No.50-78-8/9,

Padma Palace, Seethammapeta, Gurudwara Jn.,

Visakhapatnam-530 013.

…Complainant

AND:

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

403, Eswar Paradise, Dwarakanagar Main Road,

Visakhapatnam-530 016.

…Opposite Party

 

This case coming on 13-07-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of   SRI B.K.NAIDU, Advocate for the Complainant, and of                                     SRI SYED MOINUDDIN, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

 (As per Sri H.Ananda Rao, Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)                                                                              

1.       The Complainant filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party, directing them to pay the policy amount of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of accident i.e., from 06-02-2012, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he owns a motor car insured with OP (Reliance Insurance Company) for Rs.3,15,000/- and the period of insurance from 30-12-2011 to 29-12-2012  and his vehicle met with an accident on 06-02-2012, as a result,  Front Engine portion was completely damaged and when he preferred claim to the OP, they have rejected on some lame reasons which are in conformity with terms of insurance policy.

3.       That the vehicle was not repaired and released from the work shop due to non-payment of estimated repair charges of Rs.5,80,000/- besides surcharges of Rs.34,200/- to Seethamrama Motors, he insured the vehicle for lessor cost than its actual cost  fearing for payment of heavy insurance premium, he got issued legal notice to OP, demanding claim amount but there was no response which amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, this complaint.

4.       The case of OP denying the material averments of the complaint is that the car was insured with them for the period from 30-12-2011 to 29-12-2012 and the terms of the policy are binding on them. During course of investigation, it is revealed that the complainant had sold the vehicle to one B.Manikumar and the said fact got strengthen when the accident was reported to police by the said Mani Kumar who were charged for the offences U/s 181, 183 , 184 (B) of M.V.Act which proved the fact that the said Mani Kumar was not holding valid driving license that the complainant  has sold the car in question to B.Manikumar  on 8-11-2010 and the transaction was reduced into writing as sale agreement  thus as per Sales of Goods Act, the sale transaction was completed and B.Manikumar is the absolute owner of the car in question though registration certificate was not transferred, the insured preferred the present claim. This fact shows that the complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands. For these reasons, there is no deficiency of service on their part,  as such the claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

5.       To prove the case of the complaint, she filed her evidence affidavit and got marked exhibits A1 to A10 and on other hand, on behalf of the OP, they filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Exhibits B1 to B6.

6.       Exhibit A1 is the Certificate of Registration, dated 19-12-2009, Exhibit A2 is the Insurance Policy Copy, Exhibit A3 is the Certificate given by the Inspector of Police, Paderu, dated 17-02-2012, Exhibit A4 is the Receipt issued by Inspector of Police, Paderu, dated 17-02-2012, Exhibit A5 is the Estimation given by Sita Rama Motors, dated 13-02-2012, Exhibit A6 is the Parking charges estimation dated 04-08-2012, Exhibit A7 is the photos, Exhibit A8 is the Lawyer’s Notice, dated 08-08-2012, Exhibit A9 is the Postal Acknowledgement, dated 23-08-2012 and Exhibit A10 is the Photocopy of Driving License.

7.       Exhibit B1 is the Sale agreement dated 08-11-2010, Exhibit B2 is the Certificate issued by Inspector of Police, Paderu, dated 17-02-2012, Exhibit B3 is the letter addressed by Mani Kumar to OP, dated 19-01-2013, Exhibit B4 is the Letter addressed by the OP to D.Adinarayana, the insured, dated 02-02-2013, Exhibit B5 is the Investigation Report, dated 03-02-2013, Exhibit B6 is the Letter addressed by the OP to D. Adinarayana, the insured, dated 17-02-2013.

8.       Both parties filed their respective written arguments.

9.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

10.     Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

11.     The 1^st Contention of the OP is that the vehicle in question was sold away by the complainant to one B.Mani Kumar on 08-11-2010 which was reduced into writing as sale agreement and immediately, he took possession of the said car thus, the sale transaction was completed and by the date of accident, B.Mani Kumar is the absolute owner of the car and the registration certificate was not transferred but the insured complainant preferred the present claim which goes to show that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands.  To prove the same, he relied upon Exhibit B1 Sale Agreement and Exhibit B2 Investigation Report relating to the claim of the vehicle addressed by the Manager of OP to Investigator. Perusal of Exhibit B1, it is evident that it is not a sale agreement.   It is settled law by way of sale agreement, title will not be passed to the purchaser unless entire consideration was paid and it was got it registered. As the sale was not completed, we are of the considered view that basing on Exhibit A1, it could not be said that the title of the complaint was passed to B.Mani Kumar, the sale agreement holder.  It is also the case of the OP that they got the information of Exhibit B1 through their investigator, admittedly the affidavit of the investigator is not filed. For these reasons, it can be held that the contention of the OP that the complainant approached this forum with unclean hands, does not hold water.

12.     The next contention of the OP is that the Driver of the Car was not having any valid and effective license at the time of accident.  In this context, the complainant relied upon Exhibit A10, the driving license issued by licensing Authority RTI, Visakhapatnam both transport and non transport  which was issued on 03-01-2012 LMV Transport which is valid upto 02-01-2015 and LMV Non-Transport valid upto 01-01-2019. The accident occurred on 06-02-2012. Thus, it is clear that the Mani Kumar was driving the car in question on the date of accident is having valid driving license to drive the car. To rebut Exhibit A1, no contra evidence is let in by the OP.  It is their case that after registration of crime, a charge sheet is filed against the said Mani Kumar that he was not having driving license as on the date of accident, as a result of which, he was fined Rs.300/-. But no proof is filed evidencing the same. In the absence of proof much less in view of Exhibit A10, we have no hesitation to hold that the Mani Kumar who was driving the car at the time of accident is having valid and effective driving license. For these reasons, we hold that the contention of the learned counsel for OP that B.Mani Kumar was not having valid driving license have no legs to stand. 

13.     The complainant filed the present case as his vehicle was met with accident for claiming insurance amount as the vehicle in question was insured by the OP. Admittedly, for an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- as per Affidavit A2 insured Declared Value is Rs.3,15,000/-. Under Exhibit A8 Notice, the complainant informed the OP that he has insured the vehicle for lessor cost than its actual cost fearing for payment of heavy insurance premium for which, there is no reply by OP. The same plea was also taken by the complainant in his complaint vide Exhibit A5 the estimation given by Seetharama Motors for Rs.4,48,590/- for repairs charges of Rs.1,14,350/- towards labour charges. Vide Exhibit A6 parking charges estimation given by Seetharama Motors @ 200/- per day for 171 days i.e., 13-01-2012 to 03-08-2012 comes to 34,200/-. However, the complainant claimed only an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- in view of ID Value mentioned in Exhibit A2.

14.     After receiving notice from the complaint and sending claim forms etc., the OP kept quiet and not settled the claim of the complainant. For the reasons stated supra, the acts of the OP amounts to clear deficiency of service on their part. For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant in respect of insured amounts deserves to be allowed.

15.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion is, what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 24% p.a.  This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive.  Of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A2 is commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is licensed to claim interest @ 24% p.a., But at the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix the rate of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of registration of the complainant.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

16.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00, 000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Party and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is an un-disputed fact that the Opposite Party did not pay the sum assured to the complainant.   Naturally, that might have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 30,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.30,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

17.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainants ought         not have to approach this Forum had his claim for payment of Rs.3,15,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Party within a reasonable          time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly     costs are awarded.

18.     In the light of our discussion, referred supra, the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of registration of Complainant till the date of realization, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- and costs of Rs.2,500/-.

19.     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.3,15,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of registration of Complainant till the date of realization, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant. Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 23^rd day of July, 2015.      

Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT  

    

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1	19-12-2009	Certificate of Registration	Photocopy
A2		Insurance Policy Copy	Photocopy
A3	17-02-2012	Certificate given by the CI of Police, Paderu	Photocopy
A4	17-02-2012	Receipt issued by the CI of Police, Paderu	Photocopy
A5	13-02-2012	Estimation given by Sita Rama Motors	Photocopy
A6	04-08-2012	Parking charges estimation given by Sitaram Motors	Original
A7		Photos in 5 Nos.	Photocopy
A8	08-08-2012	Lawyer’s Notice	Photocopy
A9	23-08-2012	Postal Acknowledgment	Original
A10		Driving License	Photocopy

For the Opposite Party:-   -nil-

 

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1	08-11-2010	Investigation Report	Photocopy
B2	17-02-2012	Certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, Paderu	Photocopy
B3	19-01-2013	Letter addressed by Mani Kumar to OP	Photocopy
B4	02-02-2013	Letter addressed by Mani Kumar to OP
B5	03-02-2013	Investigation Report	Original
B6	17-02-2013	Letter addressed by OP to D. Adinarayana	Photocopy

 

Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT