Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

cc/220/2012

Baddi Sailaja - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pilla Jai Shankar

06 Jan 2015

ORDER

Reg.of the Complaint:27-08-2014

                                                                                                                             Date of Order:06-01-2015 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

                                            

 

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.220/2012

 

BETWEEN:

SMT. BADDI SAILAJA W/O UMMALANENI KOSHORE,

HINDU, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O MIG 2A-235, VINAYAK NAGAR,

VUDA COLONY, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-44.

                                                                                             …COMPLAINANT

A N D:

1.THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE CO., LTD.,

SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHITES ROAD,

ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI-600014.

2.THE BRANCH MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANNCE

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CBM COMPOUND,

NEAR SAMPATH VINAYAKA TEMPLE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

                                                                                      …OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

This case coming on 30-12-2014 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri. P.JAI SHANKAR, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri K.SAILESH PRASAD, Advocate for the 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 to pay an amount of Rs.2,85,235/- as per the Policy, Rs.8,000/- to shift the accident Vehile to J.L.Automobiles, Rs.30,000/- interest on loan due amount paid by him for the insured vehicle Rs.1,87,200/- expenditure spent for using private vehicle Rs.1800/- per day from 1-4-2012 to 15-07-2012 Rs.17,850/- rent amount to be paid to Jaya Lakshmi Automobiles for keeping vehicle @ 150/- per day from 16-03-2012 to 15-07-2012 and Rs.1,00,000/- mental agony totally Rs.6,28,285/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realization and costs.

2.       The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of a 4 wheeler vehicle i.e., Maruthi ECO Registration No.AP31 BK 0264  which was covered by the OPs bearing no. MPA 3627522000100 which was damaged in a road accident occurred on 16-03-2012 in Ongole Town and a case was registered as a Crime No.44/12 dated 16-03-2012 of Maddipadu Police, Prakasam District and on intimation to the OP and on their directions, he shifted the said vehicle to Jai Lakshmi Automobiles Private Limited, Guntur with her own costs for a tune of Rs.8,000/- and on 19-03-2012, the OPs surveyor Mr.Giri Kumar attended before the said work shop and collected all relevant documents relating to the vehicle and stated the vehicle was fully damaged and he promised the claim will be settled within a weak but no steps are being taken to settle the same.

3.       That due to the negligence in settlement of claim, he was liable to pay the due loan amount for a tune of Rs.1,71,352/- to the Indus Ind Bank and further rent charges to Jai Lakshmi Automobiles @ 150/- per day and he incurred rent for using private vehicle for his regular duties by spending 1800/- per day which are liable to pay by the OPs. Due to attitude of the OPs, he suffered a lot and got issued registered legal notice to the OP in turn, they gave reply that they are going to settle the claim on salvage loss basis and the IDV value of the vehicle is Rs.2,85,735/- and wreck value and policy amount is Rs.500/- and thereby net liability on their company is Rs.2,40,235/-.          That after receipt of the said letter, she got issued another legal notice and agreed for the net liability, referred supra, but surprisingly, received another letter with false averments, hence, this complaint.

4.       The case of the Opposite Parties is that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under the point of jurisdiction by denying all the material averments of the complaint. That the policy taken by the complainant is a Private Car package policy, referred supra, and upon a receipt of the claim intimation, they had appointed a surveyor who assessed the damages for a sum of Rs.2,12,787/- and informed the complainant that the claim would be settled on the total loss basis and the surveyor report is binding and valid U/s 64 of UM of the Insurance Act. That as per the terms of the policy, they have suggested that claim is settled on the total loss basis as repair estimate exceeded 75% of IDV as report of the statutory surveyor  Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act. Therefore, the settlement on salvage loss was suggested to the complainant and thereby sent a letter for settlement of claim on salvage loss basis for a sum of Rs.2,45,235/- after deducting Rs.45,000/- as wreck value and 500 as compulsory policy access for providing with settlement had sought for original settlement of the policy of  1 day proof of ensured and however, the complaint neither agreed for the statements nor submitted any documents, accepting the settlement offer given by them, thus the claim of the complainant is untenable and unsustainable. Therefore, this complaint needs to be dismissed.

5.       To prove the case; the complainant filed her Sworn Affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A 11. On the other hand, on behalf of the OPs, its Assistant Manager-Legal filed his Sworn Affidavit and got marked Exhibits B1 to B8.

6.       Exhibit A1 is the FIR dated 16-03-2012 FIR  issued by the SHO, Maddipadu Post, Prakasam District, Exhibit A2 is the Insurance Policy issued by the OP dated 07-09-2011, Exhibit A3 is the Photographs of the accident vehicle, dated 16-03-2012, Exhibit A4 is the Bank Statement showing clearance of loan dated 18-06-2012, Exhibit A5 is the Regd. Lawyer’s Notice  issued to OP dated 25-04-2012, Exhibit A6 is the letter issued by the OP, dated 26-04-2012, Exhibit A7 is the Reg. Laywer’s Notice issued to OP, dated 04-05-2012, Exhibit A8 is the Postal acknowledgement, Exhibit A9 is the reply given by OP, Exhibit A10 is the rent bill dated 30-04-2012 and Exhibit A11 is the Rent Bill dated 02-06-2012.

7.       Exhibits B1 is the  Claim Form dated 19-03-2012, Exhibit B2 is the FIR dated 16-03-2012, Exhibit B3 is the survey report  dated 10-04-2012, Exhibit B4 is the Policy Schedule, Exhibit B5 is the Private Car package Policy, Exhibit B6 is the cash receipt dated 27-4-2012, Exhibit B7 is the letter from 26-04-2012, Exhibit B8 is the mails between the parties.

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 a private car package policy in respect of the vehicle bearing No. AP31 BK 0264 valid from 25-09-2011 to 24-09-2012 for a an IDV of Rs.2,85,735/- and the policy was issued subject to the terms and conditions  on 19-03-2012, the complainant made a claim stating that his vehicle met with an accident on 16-03-2012 and upon a receipt of the claim intimation, OP had appointed an IRDA  Licensed Statutory Surveyor who assessed the damages to the vehicle for a sum of Rs.2,12,787/-. The OP as per the terms of the policy, suggested that the claim would be settled total loss basis as repair estimate exceed 75% of IDV and that the OP vide letter dated 26-04-2012 sent a letter to complainant for settlement of the claim after taking a sum of Rs.2,40,235/- after deducting a sum of Rs.45,000/- as wreck value and Rs.500/- as compulsory policy access. It is also an admitted fact that there were exchange of notices in between the complainant and the OP with regard to receipt of settlement amount in dispute.

It is held by the Honourable National Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. New Good Luck Retarding Works (III) (2009) CPJ 262 (NC) at page No.5  that report of surveyor is an important document and the same cannot be brushed aside  easily without any valid justification or any report contrary. The record shows that a surveyor was appointed  and basing on the survey report, the OP has been offered the complainant to settle the claim on salvage loss basis for Rs.2,40,235/- after deducting Rs.45,000/- as wreck value and Rs.500/- as compulsory policy access as per the terms of the policy. On scrutiny of the admissions made by both sides and on consideration of the report of surveyor in respect of the damages to the vehicle, we are of the considered view that the OPs are liable to pay the agreed amount of Rs.2,42,235/-. However, it is a fact that the OP has not considered the claim of the complainant in respect of the shifting of vehicle from the spot of accident to Jai Lakshmi Automobiles rent amount by the complainant to Jayalakshmi Automobiles for keeping vehicles, the expenditure spent for using private vehicle etc., now, it is to be seen what is the evidence let in by the complainant in this regard.

12.     Admittedly, the accident took place on NH5 Road near Ongole. It is the not the case of the OP that they themselves brought the vehicle to Jai Lakhsmi Automobiles through their transport. It is the case of the complainant that he himself incurred expenditure for bringing the vehicle or shifting the accident vehicle to the J.L. Automobiles for which,  he incurred an amount of Rs.8,000/-. To prove the same, besides his evidence, no cogent evidence is placed. However, since it is not the case of the OP that they have shifted the vehicle in our view if an amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded for shifting chares, it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the same  is awarded.  Regarding the rent amount paid to Jai Lakhsmi Automobiles for keeping vehicle @ 150/- per day, he claimed Rs.17,850/- no evidence whatsoever is filed to substantiate the same.  In respect of the expenditure spent by him for using private vehicle for a period of 3 months 15 days @ 1800/- per day for a total amount of Rs.1,87,000/- he relied upon Exhibit A10 and A11 said to have been issued by Shri Durga Devi  travels dated 30-04-2012 and Devi Tax Services dated 2-6-2012. Admittedly the relevant authorities’ Evidence Affidavit are not filed. Further Exhibit A10 reveals that he paid rent for total kilometers of Rs.2,500/- which is not at all his  case as seen from the pleadings. In respect of Exhibit A11 also he has not furnished the relevant information by summoning the relevant documents, so also there is no pleading that he took the taxi from Devi Tax Services. In the absence of pleadings besides evidence, we are of the considered view that the evidence let in by the complainant is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that he incurred the said amount. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for those amounts as sought for.

13.     It is also the case of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- interest on rent due amount paid for the insured vehicle and relied upon Exhibit A4.  However, no evidence concerning the same is filed, therefore, it can be held that he failed to substantiate the same. It is a fact that the accident took place on 16-03-2012 and there were notices and exchange of notices in between the parties and in spite of the notices sent by the complainant that he agreed to receive an amount of Rs.2,40,235/-  in the year on 26-04-2012, for the reasons best known to the OP, they issued reply notice denying the payment. All these acts of the complainant clearly and categorically go to show that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

14.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion 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.A6 is in commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is licensed to claim interest @ 24% p.a. on Ex.A6.     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 in question @ 9% p.a. on Ex.A6 in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

13.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of the 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 a un-dispute fact that the Opposite Party did not refund the amount subscribed by the Complainant.   Naturally that made 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 better 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.

14.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.  The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had his claim for payment of amounts of Rs.2,85,235/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Parties 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.3,000/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

15.     In the light of our discussion, referred supra, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.2,40,235/- together with subsequent interest @ 9% p.a., from 26-04-2012, and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards  shifting of vehicle, to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant.

16.     In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.2,40,235/- (Rupees Two Lakhs, forty thousand, two hundred and thirty five only) with interest 9% p.a., from 26-4-2012 till the date of realization and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards  shifting of vehicle, to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards compensation and costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand 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 6^th day of January, 2015.

 

  Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                         Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                       MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT        

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A 1	16-03-2012	FIR	Photostat Copy
A2	07-09-2011	Insurance Policy issued by the OP	Photostat Copy
A3	16-03-2012	Photographs of the accident vehicle	Original
A4	18-06-2012	Bank Statement showing clearance of loan	Photostat Copy
A5	25-04-2012	Regd. Lawyer’s Notice  issued to OP	Office Copy
A6	26-04-2012	Letter issued by the OP	Original
A7	04-05-2012	Reg. Lawyer’s Notice issued to OP	Office Copy
A8		Acknowledgement	Original
A9		Reply given by the OP to the Complainant	Original
A10	30-04-2012	Rent Bill	Original
A11	02-06-2012	Rent Bill	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1	19-03-2012	Claim Form	Photostat Copy
B2	16-03-2012	FIR	Photostat Copy
B3	10-04-2012	Survey Report	Photostat Copy
B4		Policy Schedule,	Certified Copy
B5		Private Car package Policy	Certified Copy
B6	27-04-2012	cash receipt	Certified copy
B7	26-04-2012	Letter	Certified copy
B8		Mails	Photostat copy

 

   Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                  Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                       MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT