Date of Filing: 25.05.2016
Date of Order:24.06.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., L.L.B., MEMBER
ON THIS THE MONDAY THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2019
C.C.No.279 /2016
Between
1. Sri Sampath Reddy Tanam,
S/o.Sri T.Salas Reddy,
Aged about 40 Years, Occ: Driver,
R/o. H.No.2-34/4, Market Road,
Suraram, Bhadurpally, Quthbullapur,
R.R.District. ……Complainant
And
- Shriram General Insurance company Ltd.,
Rep.by its Branch Manager,
Door No.12-13-1274, III Floor,
Maspack House, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad – 500 017.
- Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO Sitapura, Jaipur
Rep.by Regional ead Head Head,
Rajasthan – 302 022, India. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainants : Sri B.Upender
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Mr.V.Srikanth
O R D E R
(By Sri. P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1) This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that the opposite parties by not settling the claim caused deficiency of service and it resulted mental agony to the complainant. Hence directions to opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and costs of this complaint at Rs.10,000/-.
3) The complainants averments in brief are that:-
The complainant is the registered owner of the DCM vehicle with registration NO..AP 28TD0492 and got ensured it with opposite party No.1 under policy bearing No.10004/31/12/048030 for the period from 16.3.2012 to 15.3.2013. On 16.7.2012., the said vehicle met with an accident whenit dashed to the school van at Kodikonda check post , Momidipally Cross and in the said accident 2 school children died and some other have sustained injuries. The residents of Mamidipally and neighbouring villages reacted with angry and set fire the complainant’s DCM vehicle and also the school van. As a result the complainant’s vehicle was completely burnt. On a complaint by V R O Kodur, Police Chilamathur, Anantapur District registered a case in crime No.53/2012, for the offence u/s. 143 and 435 read with 149 IPC.
As on the date of the above said accident the policy obtained by the complainant from opposite party No.1 was subsisting. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and 2 with a request to clear the insurance claim but they dragged the issue on one or other pretext on several occasions. Later he got issued a legal notice to opposite party No.1 and 2 on 18.4.2016 and opposite party No.1 having received the same did not respond till now and this inaction on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the present complaint.
3) Opposite party No.1 & 2 in the common written version have admitted issuance of the policy to the complainant’s DCM vehicle for the period from 16.3.2012 to 15.3.2013 with terms and conditions mentioned therein, but denied the allegations of deficiency of service on their part. The substance of the contest set out in it is that immediately on receipt of information of the alleged accident occurred on 16.7.2012. they have appointed M/s. Libra Surveyor Pvt. Ltd., as a surveyor for spot survey and the complainant was requested by a letter dt.26.7.2012 to appear for final survey and shift the damaged vehicle to the nearest garage. He was also asked to confirm the estimation, to approach the surveyor for estimation of loss. The complainant failed to produce the vehicle for surveyor and to support repairing work to the vehicle. The complainant was also asked through letters dated 20.9.2012, 1.10.2012 and 10.10.2012 to .provide documents and other details mentioned within 7 days of receipt of the letter failing which it will presume that the complainant is not interested in the claim and it will be considered as no claim. But there was no response for the said letters. To give another chance to the complainant, the opposite parties addressed remainder letters on 20.9.2012 and 14.12.2012 with a request to submit the documents and other details mentioned, but the complainant kept silent . Hence the opposite parties considered it as no claim through closure letter dt.20.2.2012. The complainant after lodging the complaint he slept over the matter for 4 years and then he as come up with the present complaint. As such the complaint is barred by limitation.
The complainant claims that he is resident of Ranga Reddy District. Hence this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant is not entitled for the claims and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) In the enquiry stage the complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same got exhibited 6 documents. For the opposite parties evidence affidavit of the Assistant Manager is got filed and the substance of it is in line with the defense taken in the written version. The opposite parties also have exhibited 9 documents. Both sides have filed written arguments.
5) On a consideration of material on the record the following points have emerged for determination:
- Whether there is inaction on the part of opposite parties inspite of complainants claim for settlement. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs prayed for in the complaint?.
- To what relief?
6) Point No.1: In the light of admissions made by the opposite parties with regard to issuance of policy in Exhibit B1 to the complainant’s DCM vehicle and involvement of the said vehicle in the accident when it dashed to school bus in the limits of Chilamathur of Anantapur District, no further finding relating to it is needed . Though the opposite parties made an attempt to dispute involvement of said vehicle in the accident saying that the registration number of the vehicle shown in the FIR is different from the complainant’s insured vehicle they have given a go by this pleading and contended that complainant failed to respond to the letters written to asking him to produce documents enumerated therein. Opposite parties in the written version itself have categorically stated that soon after receipt of information relating to the accident they have appointed Libras Pvt.Ltd., for spot inspection and to assess the loss and complainant was intimated the same. From the exhibit B2 letter dt. 26.7.2012 it is evident that the complainant intimated the accident and submitted claim to the opposite party and in response to it the surveyor was appointed for spot survey and the complainant was requested to approach for final survey and shift the damaged vehicle to nearest garage for assessment of loss. It is evident from Exhibit A2 FIR that villagers with anger on account of death of 2 school children and injuries to some other have set fire to both the vehicles involved in the accident and both the vehicles were burnt completely. In the light of it asking the complainant to shift the vehicle to nearest garage to estimate the damage caused has no meaning . In view of the admission made by the opposite party in Exhibit B2 letter that the complainant’s submitted claim, no more proof is required for the complainant for submitting of claim with the opposite part. Have the opposite parties filed letter’s under Exhibits B3 to B9, but have not filed acknowledgements in proof of the service of these letters on the complainant. Opposite parties have taken a plea that the complainant was requested to attending repairs to the vehicle which has no meaning because as per the FIR insured vehicle of the complainant was completely burnt. In the light of the fact that the policy was subsists as on the date of accident the opposite parties being insurers are liable to settle the claim.
One of the defense taken by the opposite parties is closure of the claim has no claim, as the complainant slept over for 4 years then came up with the present complaint after issuing the legal notice. Hence the complaint is barred by limitation. This defense of the opposite parties has no legs to stand because, the cause of action continues to survive till the settlement of claim. It is not as if claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties on 20.12.2012 itself so as to say that limitations start from the said date. As such this ground urged by the opposite parties cannot be countenanced. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
8) Point No.2:- Since the opposite parties having not settled the claim caused deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled to claim damages apart from settlement of the claim.
9) In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the parties as under :
1. The complainant has to submit the documents enumerated by the opposite parties in Exhibit B4 to B8 letters within one month from the date of service of this order.
2. The opposite parties are directed to settle the claim within one month from the date of receipt of the documents from the complainant. and pay settled claim with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident to the date of payment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony , inconvenience to the complainant. by not settling the claim.
4. To pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
Time for compliance is one month from the service of this order.
Dictated to steno , transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on the 1st day of July, 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 – Certificate cum policy schedule
Ex.A2 – First information report dt.16.7.2012
Ex.A3 – Copy of R.C.
Ex.A4 – Driving license of complainant.
Ex.A5 – Legal notice dt.18.4.2016
Ex.A6 – Postal acknowledgement.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 – Copy of policy with schedule
Ex.B2 - Letter with Reg. Post dt.26.7.2012
Ex.B3 to B8 – Remainder letters on different dates.
Ex.B9 – Closure letter dt. 20.12.2012.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
