Date of filing: 30-04-2013.
Date of disposal: 29-01-2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 29th day of January, 2014
C.C.No.127 of 2013
Between:
Pasumarthi Venkata Subrahmanyam, S/o late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, R/o Jupudi Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.
... Complainant
And
1. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep: By its Authorized Signatory, E-8, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302022.
2. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep: By its Branch Manager, Near M Hotel, Vijayawada.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before for final hearing on 27-1-2014 in the presence of Sri K. Kishore Kumar, advocate for complainant, Sri T. Veerabhadra Rao, advocate for opposite parties, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following:
ORDER:
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This complaint is filed by complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite parties to pay claim amount of Rs.2,69,730/- under the policy claim along with interest accrued thereon, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental tension and agony, costs of the complaint and other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant owns lorry bearing No. AP 16 U 8457 and he insured the same with the opposite parties 1 and 2 vide policy No.10003/31/13/098624 which is valid from 4-6-2012 to 3-6-2013 by paying Rs.16,346/- towards premium. It is further submitted that on 26-8-2012 the said lorry met with accident in which the lorry badly damaged and a crime was registered in Cr.No.444/2012 on 26-8-2012 by Ibrahimpatnam Police under Sec.304-A IPC. The complainant informed the said fact to the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party claiming damages and later the complainant inspected the said vehicle with his mechanic M/s.Sri Lakshmi Chandra Auto Works, Vijayawada and estimated the damages at Rs.2,69,730/- and subsequently the licenced loss assessor of opposite parties also inspected the vehicle, prepared rough estimation and taken photographs of the same and also assured that the claim amount will be settled soon after verification. But the opposite parties have not settled the claim amount so far in spite of repeated requests made by complainant. It is further submitted that the since the date of accident the vehicle was kept idle and he lost income from the vehicle and he is not able to pay the installment amounts to financier. The complainant also got issued notice dt.20-3-2013 to the opposite parties with a demand to settle the claim amount with accrued interest. But the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not comply with the demand. Hence, the complaint.
2. Initially the complainant filed the complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 along with Shriram Transport Finance Ltd., Vijayawada by arraying it as 3rd opposite party. But later the complainant not pressed the complaint against the 3rd opposite party. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 and 2. Though the opposite parties made their appearance through advocate by filing Vakalat, failed to file version in spite of granting sufficient time.
3. The complainant filed affidavit reiterating the material averments made in the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. None is examined on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 and no documents marked.
4. Heard complainant and perused the record.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim of complainant so far?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
Point No.1:
6. A perusal of record discloses that the complainant is the registered owner of lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 8457 which is a goods carriage. Ex.A1 certificate of registration discloses the same. The complainant got insured the said lorry with the opposite parties 1 and 2 under Ex.A8 Certificate cum policy schedule issued by opposite parties 1 and 2. Ex.A8 further discloses that the complainant paid the premium amount and the period of insurance is from 4-6-2012 to 3-6-2013. The contention of complainant is that the said lorry met with accident on 26-8-2012 and the lorry was badly damaged and in that regard a case is registered in Cr.No.444/2012 by Ibrahimapatnam P.S under Sec.304-A IPC, which is evident from Ex.A3 FIR. It is the further contention of complainant that immediately he informed the factum of accident to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and he has inspected the lorry through his mechanic and estimated the damage at Rs.2,69,730/-, which is evident from Ex.A4 Invoice and subsequently the licenced surveyor of opposite parties also inspected the lorry, prepared rough estimation and taken photographs of same. The main grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not settled his claim so far in spite of repeated requests made by him and ultimately he got issued notice under Ex.A5 to opposite parties 1 and 2 along with financier. The postal receipts marked under Ex.A6 discloses the dispatch of notice to opposite parties and the acknowledgment of financier (3rd opposite party) is marked as Ex.A7.
7. From the perusal of record and documents marked on behalf of complainant and the contention of complainant, it is clear that after accident, he informed the same to opposite parties 1 and 2 and inspected the said vehicle with his mechanic who estimated the damages at Rs.2,69,730/- (Ex.A4 invoice). It is not the case of complainant that, on the advice of opposite parties 1 and 2 personnel, he got inspected the said vehicle with his own mechanic. Further as per the complainant version, subsequently the licenced surveyor of opposite parties 1 and 2 inspected the vehicle, prepared rough estimation and taken photographs of same. But no such rough estimation is filed along with the complaint to prove the said fact. In these circumstances, it is very hard to ascertain whether the amount i.e. Rs.2,69,730/- is required to be spent towards damages to the vehicle or not.
8. Further as per the complainant version, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not repudiated the claim so far and kept silent for nearly one year. The learned counsel for complainant at the time of advancing arguments before this Forum orally stated that the vehicle was got repaired, but for the non settlement of claim and non payment of amount, the vehicle was kept idle at the servicing center. In this case, though the opposite parties 1 and 2 made its appearance by filing Vakalat, failed to file the version denying the allegations made in the complaint. As such, it is clear that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not settled the claim of complainant or repudiated the same. As stated above, as the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to put forth defence by filing version stating that whether they have processed the claim or repudiated the claim of complainant, this Forum has no option except to believe the version of complainant. Further the opposite parties have not issued any reply to the notice of complainant. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is deemed to be admitted by the opposite parties. Exs. A1 to A8 remained unquestioned and unchallenged. Accordingly the complainant proved its case.
9. The opposite parties 1 and 2 ought to have settled the claim or repudiate the same within prescribed time by intimating the same to complainant. But in the case on hand, failure on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in settling the claim of complainant would amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. But as stated supra, as the complainant also failed to file the estimation of licenced surveyor of opposite parties and inspection of lorry by his own mechanic, he is not entitled for the claim amount as mentioned in Ex.A4 invoice. But the complainant is entitled for compensation towards mental agony as sought by him due to the inaction of opposite parties 1 and 2 in settling he claim.
10. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to settle the claim of complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The opposite parties 1 and 2 shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides costs of Rs.2,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.. If the opposite parties failed to pay the said amount within one month, it shall carry 9% p.a interest till realization. The other claims of complainant if any shall stands dismissed.
Type written by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 29th day of January, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
On behalf of the complainant:-None- On behalf of opp. parties:-None
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Photocopy of registration certificate.
Ex.A2 Photocopy of policy
Ex.A3 26.08.2012 Photocopy FIR.
Ex.A4 Photocopy of estimation of accident vehicle.
Ex.A5 20.03.2013 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OPs
Ex.A6 Postal receipt
Ex.A7 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A8 Photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule.
On behalf of opposite parties: NIL
PRESIDENT
