Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/147/2018

Sri.K.S.Nagraj S/o Sathya Narayana.K.M - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Channa Reddy Mallela - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Khalid Ahamed

23 May 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:31/07/2018

DISPOSED      ON:23/05/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:147/2018

 

DATED: 23^rd MAY 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	K.S. Nagaraj, S/o Sathyanarayana K.M, Age: 56 Years, Mechanic, Owner of KA-14 N-5448, R/o Old Town, Challakere.   (Rep by Sri.Khalid Ahamed, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Sri. Channa Reddy Mallela, Age: 35 Years, Lorry Owner bearing No.AP-4 TW 1359, Kottapalli Village, Kamalapura Mandalam, Padasurthi Post, Kadapa, AP-516309.   2. The Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., No.8/89, Gandhi Road, Proddutur, AP-516360.   (Rep by Sri.B.M. Arun Kumar, Advocate for OP No.2 and OP No.1 ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest, costs, mental agony and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the owner of Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-14 N-5448.  OP No.1 is the owner of lorry bearing Registration No.AP-4 TW-1359.  It is further submitted that, on 12.02.2017 at about 1-45 PM, the lorry belongs to OP No.1 was driven by its driver Veernarayana from Upparahatti Gate, Challakere to Pavagada on NH-48 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car of the complainant and also dashed against another lorry bearing Registration No.KA-25 TC-1338.  Due to the said accident, the complainant had sustained injuries and his car also badly damaged.  The complainant has purchased the above said car for Rs.2,90,000/- and also purchased the accessories i.e., seats, rare camera, LED display ETC worth about Rs.60,000/-, the total cost of the damaged car worth Rs.3,50,000/-.  Therefore, the OPs are held liable to bear the entire cost of the damage caused to the said car.     The cause of action for this complaint arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

3.      On service of notice, OP No.2 appeared through Sri. B.M. Arunkumar, Advocate and filed version.  In spite of service of notice, OP No.1 did not appear before this Forum and hence, placed ex-parte.

According to the version filed by the OP No.2, it is submitted that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or facts and the complainant is not a consumer under OP No.2 and the same is tenable and devoid of merits therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed limine.  It is further submitted that, OP No.2 is made as a mis-joinder of necessary party.  The complaint as against OP No.2 is only with an intention to cause trouble, inconvenience, hardship and irreparable loss to OP No.2 and to cause wrongful loss and to get wrongful gain to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, OP No.2 has issued insurance policy in favour of OP No.1 covering the risk, but the complainant filed the complaint to recover the damage sustained by his own vehicle i.e., Car bearing Registration No.KA-16 N-5448 and the same is to be recover from the Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., in which the complainant has obtained the policy covering the risk to his car, sustained in an accident, but not from the OP No.2, which shows that the present complainant is not the consumer under OP No.2 and therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  It is admitted that, the complainant is the owner of car bearing No.KA-16 N-5448 but it is not aware of the fact that, the vehicle is used for his personal work to attend the workshop to house.  The averments made in para No.3 to 6 are false, created, concocted and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same and the complainant is not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complaint filed as against OP No.2 is devoid of merits and therefore, the complainant is entitled for any relief from this OP and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-6 were got marked and closed their side.  On behalf of OP No.2, one Sri Nagaraj Adiga, the Senior Divisional Manager has examined as DW-1 and no documents have been produced and marked as Ex.B-1 to B-3 and closed their side.

 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable or not against the OP No.2?

(2) Whether the complainant proves that, OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

         7.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative. 

                   Point No.2:- Partly in Affirmative. 

                    Point No.3:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs for recovery of money towards damage caused to his vehicle.  On 12.02.2017 at about 1-45 PM, the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-04 TW-1359 by name Veeranarayana, near Upparahatti Gate on NH-48 driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against another lorry bearing Registration No.KA-25 TC-1338.  Due to the said accident, the complainant sustained injury and his car fully damaged.  The complainant is claiming the compensation against the OPs towards the punitive damages.  The OP No.2 has filed his version stating that, the complainant is not the consumer under them.  In this case, the OP No.2 has admitted that, the OP No.1 is the RC owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP-04 TW-1359.  The said vehicle was insured with OP No.2.  The driver of OP No.1 has driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.  When the vehicle is having insurance with the OP No.2, if any defects or negligence has been committed by the OP No.1, the OP No.2 is held responsible.  The complainant is seeking punitive damages against the OPs.  Under such circumstances, the complainant is a consumer under OP No.2 through vehicle of OP No.1 and accordingly, the Point No.1 is held affirmative.

9.      Point No.2:-  The complainant is the RC owner of the car bearing Registration No.KA-14 N-5448.  OP No.1 is the owner of lorry bearing Registration No.AP-4 TW-1359.  It is pertinent to note that, on 12.02.2017 at about 1-45 PM, when the complainant’s car stood in the left side of the road at Upparhatti gate on Challakere-Pavagada road on NH-48.  By that time, the driver of the vehicle of OP No.1 driven his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car of the complainant.  Due to that accident, the complainant had sustained injury and his car was fully damaged.  According to the complainant, the complainant has purchased the above said car for Rs.2,90,000/- and he incurred Rs.60,000/- towards other accessories, in all he has incurred Rs.3,50,000/- for the said car.  The complainant is claiming Rs.3,50,000/- against the OPs.  The OP No.2 has filed his version and taken a contention that, the complainant is not the consumer under OP No.2, that point is already discussed in Point No.1.  When the vehicle of the OP No.1 was insured with the OP No.2, the complainant is claiming only punitive damages against the OPs.  Under such circumstances, the OP No.2 is held liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.  Accordingly, the OPs are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant for Rs.2,50,000/-.  The concerned Police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the OP No.1.  So, it clearly shows that, the negligence has been committed by the driver of OP No.1.  The vehicle of OP No.1 is insured with OP No.2.  As per Ex.A-4, it clearly shows that, OP No.1 has insured his vehicle with the OP No.2 and on the date of accident, the policy was in force.  Ex.A-5 and A-6 are the FIR and Charge Sheet, the same are clearly shows that, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of OP No.1, the accident took place.  Under such circumstances, the OPs are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant towards punitive damages.  So, in any angle, it shows that the OPs have committed deficiency of service for non settlement of the claim of the complainant.   Hence, this Point No.2 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.3:- As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant towards damages caused to his vehicle  along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of accident i.e., 12.02.2017 till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 23/05/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri.Nagaraj Adiga. M.R, the Senior Divisional Manager of OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Photos
02	Ex-A-2:-	Permit
03	Ex-A-3:-	IMV report
04	Ex-A-4:-	Policy
05	Ex-A-5:-	FIR CR.No.53/2017
06	Ex-A-6:-	Charge sheet
07	Ex.A-7:-	Complaint given by the complainant

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Certified copy of charge sheet
02	Ex-B-2:-	Certified copy of Policy
03	Ex-B-3:-	Copy of Policy

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**