For the Opp.Party No.1: For the Opp. Party No.2: Exparte
DATE OF FILING: 11.12.2012
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 17.11.2017
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Presiding Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in insurance service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The brief facts of the case that are relevantly required for disposal of this complaint is that as per the complain petition he is the absolute owner of the vehicle (Tata Truck) bearing registration No. AP-16U-5728 and the vehicle is the only source of income of the complainant and he is maintaining his livelihood out of the income from the said vehicle. The complainant has insured his vehicle with the O.Ps vide Insurance Policy No.10003/31/12/165996 dated 29.6.2011 issued by the O.Ps. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.15,026/- towards premium on the basis of the calculation made by the O.Ps and the policy was valid from 29.06.2011 to 28.06.2012 midnight. Unfortunately, the vehicle of complainant was met with an accident on 09.06.2012 at 7.00P.M at Kasimkote on N.H. 16 road. Due to such accident the driver of the vehicle was died and the vehicle in question was severely damaged. Immediately after accident, the complainant informed police authority, who took investigation of the accident and a criminal case bearing No.66/2012 was registered by the police under Section 304(A) and 337 of I.P.C respectively. The complainant informed to the O.Ps about the incident over telephone. In order to avoid further damage to the vehicle, the complainant has no alternative but to shift the vehicle to the authorized service center of the company i.e. Sri Kanaka Durga Lorry Mechanical Works, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada and the shifting of the vehicle was also duly informed to the O.Ps. On the basis of information, the surveyor of the O.Ps inspected the vehicle and assured the complainant to take necessary steps to reimburse the cost of repairing charges including the cost of spare parts as per estimate and claim made by the repairing center in order to make the vehicle fit for running condition. It is also alleged that on the basis of assurance of the surveyor of O.Ps over telephone, the repairing work of the vehicle was started and the complainant with much financial difficulties compelled to purchase the spare parts etc believing that it would be reimbursed as promised by the O.Ps as per the policy. In spite of repeated approaches and requests made by the complainant, the O.Ps did not turn on to make payment of the amount though the O.Ps are liable to pay the same as promised under the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also informed that a criminal case is instituted and proper information is duly communicated to the O.Ps till today and no action has been taken by the O.Ps for settlement of the claim amount, as a result of which the complainant out of his own cost has released the vehicle from the servicing center on payment of Rs.1,37,500/- only towards repairing charges of the vehicle and Rs.1,13,402/- towards cost of spare parts. It is also stated in the complaint that due to deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps, the complainant suffered from mental agony as well financial loss which is violation of terms and conditions of policy. When the O.Ps did not give any heed to his grievances, he has filed this consumer dispute alleging deficiency in insurance service on part of the O.Ps with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,902/- towards cost of spare parts and repairing charges of the vehicle along with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses in the best interest of justice.
3. On receipt of notice the O.P.No.1 appeared through learned counsel Shri R.K. Panigrahi, Advocate and filed written /version and arguments. In the written version it is stated that the averments made in the complaint are all not true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The vehicle financed at Ichapuram, the alleged vehicle registered at Srikakulam, Route permit issued at Srikakulam, insurance policy issued at Srikakulam, and the accident occurred at Kasimkota of Andhra Pradesh and the repairing work was done at Vijayawada. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable on the jurisdiction point of view and the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complainant. The averments made in Para-6 are completely false. No such Branch Office of Shriram General Insurance Company is functioning at Berhampur. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable on the jurisdiction point and the same is liable to be dismissed. The accident occurred on 10.06.2012 at Ahankapuri (Visakhapatnam) and intimation was given on 07.07.2012 (i.e. after 27 days of the accident) which violates the term and conditions of insurance policy hence the complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle was not produced for survey to our appointed surveyor and with an ulterior motive repaired the vehicle without any survey. No such claim is ever made, no such documents (i.e. Claim Form, R.C., Route permit, Fitness certificate, Estimate, Bills and Cash Memos, Police Investigation Report, Load challan, etc.) are submitted before the O.P.No.1 at any point of time, and for that the O.P. has repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 21.12.2012. On the date and time of accident the complainant is not the registered owner of the vehicle as per the R.C. Book, Route permit and fitness certificate of the alleged Truck AP-16U-5728. Hence the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost for unnecessarily dragged this O.P.No.1 to this Forum. The question of negligence and deficiency on the part of this O.P.No.1 does not arise. Hence the allegations of negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency service leveled by the complainant against this O.P. is not maintainable and for that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a registered owner of the above alleged vehicle. Hence the complainant has no insurable interest over the above alleged vehicle. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Notice was issued against the O.P.No.2 but he neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version. Hence he is declared set exparte on dated 14.03.2017.
5. On the date of final hearing we heard arguments from the learned counsel for the complainant as well as for the O.P.No.1. We have also thoughtfully perused the pleadings and verified the materials placed on the case record. During the course of hearing of the consumer complaint, before going into merit of the case, we heard the matter on the point of maintainability of the dispute and on territorial jurisdiction of the his Forum to adjudicate this dispute as pleaded by the leaned counsel for the O.P.No.1. On perusal of the materials placed on the case record, we find that in this case the cause of action of accident arose at Andhra Pradesh and the vehicle is registered at Andhra Pradesh. The alleged vehicle is also registered at Andhra Pradesh in the name of one Sri Venkateswar Rao Alli by the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh. Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute and accordingly the claim of the present complainant is not maintainable in this Forum on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in view of Section of 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the light of above discussions, the complaint of the complainant is ordered to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to redress his grievance before a Forum of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as prescribed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. Resultantly, we dismissed the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the complainant to file such complaint before any other Forum for redressal of his grievance and for that he may avail the benefit U/S 14 of the Limitation Act in the best interest of justice.
7. The order is pronounced on this day of 17th November 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
