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
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A., MEMBER.
Thursday, 30th October 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 24/ 2014
Kotapati Raja Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy,
Hindu, Kapu, Cultivation, Residing at D.No. 15-12-356,
Putlampalli Village, Buddayapalli Post,
Kadapa YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
Sreeram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Branch Manager, Branch Office, D.No. 1-335-336,
2nd floor Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa city,
Kadapa YSR District. ….. Respondent.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 17-10-2014 in the presence of Sri V.A. Vara Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Goutham Kumar, Advocate for Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- towards damages, loss of income and also mental agony and costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant purchased tractor – trailer bearing No. AP O4 Y : 4243 & 4244 and the same was insured with the respondents insurance company vide policy bearing No. 10008/31/13/017045 valid from 7-9-2012 to 6-9-2013. The said policy covered third party claim and own damages and accidental benefits. While so when the complainant tractor trailer was proceeding on road with gravel load during night time due to reflection of lighting of the opposite coming vehicle the tractor was turned turtled, as a result some parts of the engine was broken front wheel, mudguard were damaged, engine oil was lost. Immediately after the accident the complainant informed the same to the respondent company and surveyor of the said company visited the scene of offence and examined the damaged parts and also took photos of the damaged parts of the tractor. The complainant incurred Rs. 73,000/- towards replacement of spare parts in place of damaged parts and submitted bills issued by the concerned authority company. But the respondent company paid an amount of Rs. 1,995/- by way of cheque 262637, dt. 19-11-2012 drawn on HDFC bank, Kadapa. But the complainant returned the cheque to the respondent stating that it is very low. Thereafter, inspite of legal notice dt. 29-10-2013 the respondent failed to pay the amount and did not give reply. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent and also failed to settle the claim. Thus the complainant suffered lot of mental agony. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. The respondent, insurance company filed counter denying the allegations and called upon the complainant to prove all of them.
4. It is further contended that the complainant failed to inform about the accident to ascertain the spot survey whether the vehicle met with an accident and sustain damages to the parts of the tractor. The complainant shifted the vehicle form the spot without getting any spot survey and also even without intimating to the police about the accident. There is no FIR of any record to prove that the vehicle was met with an accident. The complainant did not say time and date of the accident in the complaint. The above circumstances shows the vehicle was not damaged due to the accident but for unlawful gain to claim the damages.
5. It is further contended Libra surveyors Pvt. Ltd., submitted a report, after examining the vehicle which was damaged on 13-10-2012 and an estimation was issued by M/s Haroon Tractors for total amount of Rs. 59,067/- for damaged parts. After the report this respondents concluded that the vehicle was not damaged due to accident but it was damage for the reason known to the complainant when ordered to replace other part of engine and body of the vehicle. Thereafter, this respondents send a cheque of Rs. 1,995/- to the complainant though the vehicle was not damaged due to the accident as per terms of the respondent send the cheque for the above amount towards normal damages. Therefore, the complaint is false and claim is devoid of substance as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the tractor – trailer met with an accident and sustained damages to the tune of Rs. 73,000/- as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. No oral evidence has been let in by either party. On behalf of the complainant Exhibits A1 to A5 documents are marked and on behalf of the respondent Exhibits B1 & B2 documents are marked by consent. The complainant filed written arguments.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed by complainant.
9. Point No. 1 There is no dispute that the complainant is the owner of the tractor – trailer bearing No. AP 04 Y 4243 & 4244 and the same was insured with the respondents company under Ex. A2 insurance policy and the same is valid from 7-9-2012 to 6-9-2013 and the tractor – trailer covers third party claim, own damages and accidental benefits. The same has also been proved by filing Exhibits A1, A2, A5 and Ex. B1 by the complainant and respondent. Though the complainant did not mentioned the date of accident but in the counter the respondents admitted that the tractor – trailer was damaged on 13-10-2012 and the Libra Surveyors company surveyor submitted a report and also surveyor received estimation issued by M/s Haroon Tractors, Kadapa for total amount of Rs. 59,067/-. According to the complainant the tractor – trailer met with accident on Bakarapet – Kadapa road near JMJ College during night time when it was coming with gravel load. Though the complainant has not given any complaint to the police station as it was night and no spot inspection was done by the respondent surveyor, still the Libra Surveyors company visited the vehicle. When it was placed in showroom of M/s Haroon Tractors, Kadapa and received estimation issued by Haroon Tractors for an amount of Rs. 59,067/-. The Libra surveyors company report was also to the effect that the spot survey was not done as the complainant shifted the vehicle from the spot and kept it in the show room i.e. M/s Haroon Tractors, Kadapa. From the above circumstances it is very clear that the tractor – trailer of the complainant met with an accident and sustained damages to the parts of the tractor and the was sifted M/s Haroon Tractors, Kadapa and the same was visited by the Libra surveyors company deputed by respondent company and M/s Haroon Tractors issued estimation of damages to the tune of Rs. 59,067/-. Though the complainant stated that he spent Rs. 73,000/- towards replacement of damaged parts of tractor – trailer, but there is no evidence to prove the same as he did not file any bills etc., from the said M/s Haroon Tractors, Kadapa. However, according he got replaced the damaged parts of the tractor – trailer in view of the accident. Since, the complainant is owner of the tractor – trailer and insured the same as per Exhibits. A2 & B1 policy issued by the respondent for the period from 7-9-2012 to 6-9-2013, I hold the complainant’s tractor – trailer met with an accident and sustained damages to its parts to the tune of Rs. 59,067/- only. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 59,067/- and not for Rs. 73,000/- as claimed from the respondent. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.
10. Point Nos. 2 & 3 The complainant issued legal notice under Ex. A3 to the respondent company. But the respondent company had not settled the claim. On the other hand the respondents company sent a cheque for Rs. 1,995/- only on 19-11-2012 which was not accepted by complainant. Since the tractor – trailer of complainant met with accident during valid period of insurance policy under Ex. A2 issued by respondent company, the respondent is bound to pay the own damages to the complainant as per estimation by M/s Haroon Tractors, Kadapa received by them through its surveyor. But the respondents did not pay the amount instead send a cheque for Rs. 1,995/- only to the complainant which was refused by him as grossly low. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent to the claim of complainant. Accordingly the points are answered.
11. Point No. 4. In the result. The complaint is allowed, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 59,067/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand Sixty Seven Only) towards damages of tractor – trailer to the complainant and shall also pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs, payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claim is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 30th October 2014
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of the registration certificate in respect of the damaged tractor and trolley bearing No. AP 04 Y : 4243 and 4244.
Ex. A2 P/c of insurance policy in respect of the tractor and trolley bearing Nos. AP 04 Y : 4243 and 4244.
Ex. A3 Office copy of legal notice issued to the respondent company
dt. 29-10-2013 along with postal receipt.
Ex. A4 Letter addressed by the postal authorities about the receipt of the legal notice by the respondent on 30-10-2013.
Ex. A5 P/c of permit in respect of the tractor – trailley bearing No. AP 04 Y : 4243 and 4244 issued by RTA, Kadapa.
Exhibits marked for Respondent: -
Ex. B1 Policy copy issued by the respondent company on 7-9-2012.,
Ex. B2 Attested copy of Libra Surveyor’s report dt. 12-10-2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri V.A. Vara Prasad, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri P. Goutam Kumar, Advocate for respondent
B.V.P. - - -
