Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/266/2011

Singavarapu Tejo Rama Trinadharao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.N Patnaik

22 Jan 2015

ORDER

Reg. of the Complaint:19-07-2011

                                                                                                                                 Date of Order:22-01-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

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

       President

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

                                             Male Member

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

       Lady Member

                                            

 

THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.266/2011

 

BETWEEN:

SINGAVARAPU TEJO RAMA TRINADHARAO,

S/O LATE RAMAMURTHY, HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS,

R/AT D.NO.58-15-135,  SRI SAI MANI RESIDENCY,

FLAT NO.F-2, SHANTHINAGAR, NAD POST,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

                                                                                             …COMPLAINANT

A N D:

1.ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

CHENNAI, REP. BY ITS MANAGER,CORORATE MOTOR CLAIMS,

ROYAL SUNDARAM, SUNDARAM TOWERS-46, WHITES ROAD,

ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI-600 014.

 

2.MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM BRANCH, VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

3.MANAGER, VARUN MOTORS PVT., LIMITED, D 25,

INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NH 5, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 007.

 

4.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,  VARUN MOTORS PVT. LTD,

SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

                                                                                      …OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

This case coming on  01-01-2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of SRI V.S.N.PATNAIK, Advocate for the Complainant, SRI  K.SAILESH PRASAD, Advocate for the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, and of SRI M.R.K.GANDHI, Advocate for the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:

 

 

 

O  R  D  E  R

(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The Complainant filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 directing to pay an amount of Rs.2,12,234/- towards repairs and damages of his vehicle bearing No.AP31 B4 5035 estimated by OPs 3 and 4, damages of Rs.40,000/- and costs.

2.       The case of the complainant is that he purchased Motor Vehicle i.e., Martuthi Alto LXI 5STR BSIII bearing Registration No.AP31BE5035 from 4^th OP in the year 2010 and got insured with the 1^st OP, subsequently OP1 sent insurance cover note through post that on 19-01-2011 at about 4.30.am his friend who is LMV License holder while driving the vehicle made an accident and caused damage to the vehicle and immediate to telephonic message, he came to know about the accident and as he was out of station, immediately telephoned to 3^rd OP for his assistance for which, he informed him to shift the damaged vehicle  to his house which is nearer to the accident spot and suggested him that they will take vehicle after his arrival for Visakhapatnam and subsequently on 24-01-2011, the 3^rd OP picked up his damaged vehicle to his workshop and promised to deliver on 30-03-2011 and issued job slip, repair explanation sheet on the even date.  On 24-10-2011, the 3^rd OP received claim forms and offered all formalities which is needed to claim from first OP and obtained all essential signatures from him. But, surprisingly, he received one registered post dated 1-3-2011 through OP1, stating that the damages of the vehicle are not relevant to the cause of accident and their inability to entertain the claim though the vehicle was covered with insurance of OP1 with cover note period of insurance form 5-1-2011 to 4-1-2012. Thereupon, he gave a notice to OPs 1 and 2, but there was no response, hence this complaint.

3.       The case of Opposite Parties 1 and 2 denying the material averments of the compliant admitted that the complainant had taken a motor insurance policy bearing No.300265527 valid from 5-1-2011 to 4-1-2012 from OP. That on receipt of the information from the complainant about accident and the vehicle damage, a Surveyor was appointed who noted down the damages but they did not follow with cause and nature of accident and in spite of several demands, the complainant failed to reveal the true nature of the damages that the vehicle sustained damages. Since the damages were not relevant to the cause of accident, they denied the claim of the complainant. The complainant has tried to conceal the true cause of action and therefore, the claim of the complainant is not applied under the policy terms. It is settled law that the Survey Report is binding on the complainant. Further, the complainant has not produced any evidence to the contrary to the Statutory Survey Report. Without prejudice to the above, it is contended that IRDA licensed surveyor had assessed the loss and therefore, the OP surveyor  liability, if any, is restricted to a sum of Rs.1,41,154/- but not Rs.2,12,234/- as alleged by the complainant. On a perusal of the case of the complainant, there is no negligence, no service provided by them, as such, the  question of mental agony, does not arise. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       The case of the 4^th Opposite Party, denying the material allegations of the complaint is that the complainant filing of complaint against this OP is an abuse of law and that due to difference between the complainant and the OPs, the damaged vehicle is occupying valuable working place in the workshop. Therefore, they reserve the right to levy hire charges. There is no allegations of deficiency of service against them. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.       To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, he himself filed his sworn Affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A8 and on the other hand, on behalf of the OPs 1, 2 and 4, their respective Legal Managers have filed Evidence Affidavits and B1 to B5 are marked. 

6.       Exhibit A1 is the acknowledgement of 4^th OP dated 31-03-2011, Exhibit A2 is the Regd., Letter from 1^st OP dated 01-03-2011, Exhibit A3 is the Driving License of the Driver dated 24-10-2007, Exhibit A4 is the Insurance Policy of 1^st OP dated 05-01-2011, Exhibit A5 is the Regd. Lawyer’s Notice dated 31-03-2011, Exhibit A6 is the Postal Receipts, Exhibit A7 is the copy of service estimate, Exhibit A8 is the Statement of Transactions given by 2^nd OP dated 29-03-2013.

7.       Exhibits B1 is the Policy Schedule dated 10-01-2011, Exhibit B2 is the survey report  dated 07-02-2011, Exhibit B3 Motor Insurance Claim Form, Exhibit B4 is the photocopies of photos,  Exhibit B5 is the Acknowledgement and letter from 1^st and 2^nd OPs dated 4-3-2011.         

8.       Both parties filed their respective written arguments.

9.       Heard oral arguments of 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 OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

11.     As seen from the record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken a Motor Insurance Policy bearing No.300265527 which was in force from 5-1-2011 to 4-1-2012, subject to specific terms and conditions as stipulated in the policy which governs the instant claim. It is also not in dispute that on 19-01-2011, the Complainant Motor Vehicle Maruti Alto bearing Registration Private Car Package Policy in respect of the vehicle bearing No. AP31 BE 5035 was met with an accident on 19-01-2011.

12.     The record shows that OP3 has issued service estimation to the Insurance Company on 27-01-2011 for an amount of Rs.2,12,234.64ps and sent to OPs 1 and 2 without serving copy to the complainant after filing of this complaint,  the 3^rd and 4^th OPs issued estimation on 10-1-2012 for an amount of Rs.1,72,619.64ps. But on 9-2-2011, the surveyor report of OPs 1 and 2 ascertained the estimation amount of Rs.1,41,154/- after conducting survey. Subsequently on 01-03-2011, the complainant received a registered post from OP stating that the damages to the vehicle are not relevant to the cause of accident and stated their inability to entertain the claim in respect of the vehicle covered under Exhibit A4 Insurance Policy. The Exhibits marked on behalf of the complainant i.e., A1 to A7  coupled with evidence affidavit clearly shows that the damaged vehicle was covered with insurance and the driver of the damaged vehicle was having valid driving license no. DLEAP031315082010 and thereupon the complainant issued legal notice to the OPs but they failed to respond. The record clearly shows that the complainant is having consumer relationship with all the OPs. Further, the acts of OPs 1 and 2 clearly comes under the purview of deficiency of service on their part.

It is held in 2009 ACJ 2791 by the law of the land, that the Insurance Companies in genuine and bonafide claims should not avoid payments on one pretext or the other, which puts a serious question mark on their credibility and trust worthiness and involves enormous litigations costs and interest liability with all the OPs. Further, the Acts of OPs 1 and 2 clearly comes under the purview of deficiency of service on their part.

It is further held by the law of the land in 2008 ACJ 2035 that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured for his loss when he has obtained comprehensive policy. It was further observed even assuming that  there was a Breach of condition of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis and it cannot repudiate the claim in toto etc.,

13.     According to OPs as the damages sustained to the vehicle are not relevant to the cause of accident. As such they expressed their inability to entertain the claim. To prove the same they relied upon Exhibit B2 Survey Report. Admittedly, the affidavit of the surveyor who estimated the vehicle damages is not filed. He is the proper person to speak about it, but for the reasons best known to the OP, his evidence affidavit is not come into light.  Therefore, taking consideration of the fact that the vehicle sustained damages and in view of settled proposition of Law, we are inclined to award some amount. The evidence affidavit of complainant coupled with exhibits shows at different intervals, different estimations are recorded i.e., from Rs.2,12,234/- to Rs.1,14,154/-. The last estimation is the survey report. Merely because, the complainant has not stated the details of the damages in his complaint in the circumstances stated supra, is not a ground to disallow the relief sought for by the complainant.

14.     In view of the decision reported in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY VS. SEHRAWAT INDIA (P) LTD. (III (2009) CPJ 4 (NC), held that “the report of the surveyor is an important document and has to be given due importance in arriving at the conclusion about the net loss suffered by the complainant, we are of the considered view that the loss estimated by the surveyor in his report  has to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, the same is considered and granted and awarded an amount of Rs.1,41,154/- and costs of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant.

15.     In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the OPs 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.1,41,154/- (Rupees One Lakh, Forty One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Four Only) and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand 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 22^nd day of January, 2015.

 

Sd/-                 Sd/-                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                       MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT        

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1	31-03-2011	Acknowledgement of 4th OP FIR	Original
A2	01-03-2011	Letter from 1st OP	Photostat Copy
A3	24-10-2007	Driving License of the Driver	Photostat Copy
A4	05-01-2011	Insurance Policy  of 1st OP	Photostat Copy
A5	31-03-2011	Regd. Lawyer’s Notice	Office Copy
A6		Postal receipts	Original
A7		Service Estimate	Office Copy
A8	29-03-2013	Statement of Transactions given by 2nd OP	Original

 

For the Opposite Parties:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1	10-01-2011	Policy schedule	Photostat Copy
B2	09-02-2011	Survey Report	Photostat Copy
B3		Motor insurance claim	Photostat Copy
B4		Photos of the accident of the vehicle	Photostat copy
B5	04-03-2011	Acknowledgement	Original

 

Sd/-                 Sd/-                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                       MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT