Date of filing: 15-2-2017                               Date of order : 20-12-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA,  Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

Wednesday, 20^th day of  December, 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 13 / 2017

Smt. G. Jayanthi, W/o G. Ramachandra Raju,

Indian, Hindu, Age 50 years,

Business, Resident of Door No.7/655-3,

Chinnachowk, Kadapa-516 002. (A.P).                        …. Complainant.

Vs.

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorised Manager,

2^nd Floor, Sri Gopal Auto Stores, Maruthi Nagar,

Near RTC Bus Stand, Cuddapah. ( A.P).                       ….. Opposite Party.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 13-12-2017 in the presence of Sri T.V.S.S. Murthy, Advocate, Kadapa  for Complainant and                         Sri P. Goutham Kumar, Advocate, Kadapa for Opposite party,  and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

 (Per Smt. K. Sireesha,  Member),

             1)  The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act). The complainant praying this Hon’ble Forum to award Rs.1,07,500/- towards damages with 24% p.a. interest from the date of accident  till realization and Rs.50,000/- towards financial loss and mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle                AP04 P-5155 Toyota four wheeler manufactured in 06/2008 registered on 20-6-2008. The same vehicle insured with respondents company policy No.417008/31/16/005407, valid from 2-3-2016 to 1-3-2017 for Rs.4,00,000/-. She engaged one G. Sreenivasa Raju, as a driver of the vehicle having licensed of LMV valid up to 9-2-2032 on 2-12-2016 at 4-30 A.M. when the vehicle proceeding from Tirupathi to Cuddapah  near Mantampampalli on Ontimitta opposite  side a lorry came rashly resulted the driver lost control on the vehicle.  As a result, the vehicle hit tree and damaged. The workshop estimated the value of damages at Rs.1,07,500/-. The complainant informed the accident to the respondent, M/s Naseeb Tinker Works, Kadapa made a survey on 23-12-2016. The complainant made a claim No.10000/31/17/C/056999 with Reference No.C/GH000000700/02DEC16/02DEC16131946/100000 with assignment type as claim. The respondent company estimated claim for Rs.19,939/- the respondent company willing to pay only Rs.21,063/- towards insurance claim. It clearly amounts to deficiency of service, hence the complaint.

           2) The respondent filed counter admitting insurance policy valid from 2-3-2016 to 1-3-2017 on 2-12-2016 at 4-30 A.M.   the vehicle hit a tree  near Mantapampally and got damaged to that effect the complainant had not give any police complaint. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driver of the driver of the vehicle AP04P-5155 is due to sole negligence of the driver of the complainant. The respondent deputed a surveyor on 2-12-2016 as per the surveyor assessed loss by deducting 40%  depreciation on metal parts and 50% depreciation on rubber parts and 50% depreciation on painting and submitted his report. After that the respondents approved the claim and issued motor claim approval sheet for an amount of Rs.23,755/- and after deducting the compulsory excess and salvage charges the net loss assess Rs.19,939/- in favour of the complainant but she refused the same. Hence there is no deficiency and complaint may be dismissed with costs.

           Proof Affidavit of the complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 filed and got marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 filed ad got marked by the respondents. Written arguments filed by both parties. No oral evidence adduced.

        From the above averments these points are taken for consideration :-

1. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by her or not ?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on behalf of the respondent or not ?
3. To what relief ?

           Point no.1 and 2 :- It is very clear from Ex. A2 that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle i.e., AP04 P-5155 and the same was insured with the respondent company vide policy No.417008/31/16/005407 valid from 2-3-2016 to 1-3-2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- as per Ex.A1. Ex.B1 also proves that the vehicle was insured with the respondent company. As per Ex.A3 the driver is having valid LMV license who were driving the vehicle at the time of accident. As seen from the complainant the version of the complainant is, the vehicle met with an accident near Mantapam Palli on 2-12-2016, but there is no police complaint with regard to the same accident. As per Ex.A3 the driver is having valid license, but he kept quiet  in giving the police complaint about the accident and rash and negligent driving of the opposite side lorry driver. So, the accident was not proved by documentary evidence. As per Ex.A4 we can see the damage of the vehicle, but there is no clarity that the damage occurred on 2-12-2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the opposite lorry driver at the same time Ex.A4 does not proved that where and when the accident occurred. They are simply photographs of the damaged vehicle. After receiving the claim form from the complainant the respondent deputed a surveyor, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.21,063/- as per Ex.A5. Ex.B2 is the surveyors report for Rs.21,063/- as per Ex.B3 the claim was approved after deductions for Rs.19,939/- for the same the respondents had issue a cheque under Ex.B4 the same was rejected by the complainant.

           Ex.A6 and ExA7 are the bills and estimation filed by the complainant did not support her case because they are not the authorized workshops, they are the private workshops. So, the complainant utterly failed to prove her case at the same time, there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondents. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered.

           Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 20^th day of December, 2017

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant:         NIL

Witnesses examined for the Opposite party:      NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -

Ex: A1:-   P/c of Policy Certificate No.417008/31/16/005407.

Ex: A2:-  P/c of the Registration Certificate No. AP04 P5155.

Ex: A3:-  P/c of Driving License No.AP004 2012 000 2304.   

Ex: A4:-  Photographs of the injured vehicle.

Ex: A5:-  Copy of Assignment Details of the Respondent Company.

Ex: A6:-  P/c of bunch of receipts.

Ex: A7:-  P/c of Estimation.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties: - 

Ex: B1:-  Policy copy issued by the opposite party.

Ex: B2:-  Attested copy of Survey Report.   

Ex: B3:-  Motor Claim Approval Sheets.

Ex: B4:-  Photostat copy of cheque.   

MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1. Sri T.V.S.S. Murthy, Advocate, Kadapa.
2. Sri P. Goutham Kumar, Advocate, Kadapa.

& & &

P.R.