STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 125 of 2017
AGAINST
CC No. 17/2015, DISTRICT FORUM I, HYDERABAD
Between :
M/s. Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd
Rep by its Branch Manager,
D.No.3-6-517, Flat NO. 401-403, 4th floor,
Near Himalaya World, Hyderabad – 500 029 ..Appellant/opposite party
And
Srisailam, B. S/o B. Veeraiah,
Age : 26 years, Occ : Owner cum Driver of Motor Cab
No.AP28-TV-3099, R/o H.No.16-11-20/6/1/1,
Saleemnagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N. Mohan Krishna
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. Mohd. Yousuf.
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh Day of December
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2015 made in CC 17 of 2015 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM-I, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he insured his Motor Cab bearing No. AP-28-TV-3099 for the purpose of carrying passengers vide Policy bearing No.AP-28-TV-3099 for the period from 16.03.2013 to 15.03.2014 with the opposite party towards IDV and also covering the risk of personal accident for Owner cum driver. On 21.05.2013 at about 11-00 a.m., when the complainant was driving the vehicle to Tirupathi in the mid way near KMC Campus one Santhro car bearing No.AP-21-AA-5823, came from opposite direction with high speed and dashed the said car due to which the complainant received grievous head injury and he became unconsciousness and also the entire vehicle was damaged. On the complaint of Telugu Mallikarjuna, the Police Panyam registered a case in crime No.87 of 2013 under section 338 of I.P.C. He was immediately shifted to the Saikrishna Super specialty Hospital at Kachiguda, Hyderabad and he was unconsciousness up to 30 days and undergone ICU treatment as there was severe head injury and nerves also damaged and an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was spent for his treatment by barrowing from money lenders at high interest rate and he was discharged on 06.06.2013. For not paying further payment to the hospital, he was shifted to the Osmania General Hospital for continuing further treatment of physiotherapy for a period of 8 months and follow up treatment. Due to major head injury his nerves were damaged and he became permanent disabled and also unable to speak and walk properly thereby he was under complete bed rest. His uncle informed about the accident to the opposite party through telephone and the opposite party sent a surveyor named V.Rajashekar Reddy to the spot and he took fresh photographs of damaged vehicle and assessed the damages and issued a claim form in favour of the complainant and same was submitted along with all relevant documents to the opposite party, which shifted the vehicle to SRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE at Attapur office for repair and settlement of claim. He visited several times the office of the opposite party for repair of vehicle but by putting a new query the opposite party avoided the repair. He already spent huge amount for his treatment and he also lost his business as the vehicle was damaged the vehicle was also not delivered to him. Hence he issued a legal notice on 07.01.2014 but the opposite party did not settle the claim. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,43,000/- towards the total loss of vehicle as per IDV with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of accident and loss of business, total Rs.6,00,000/- to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for not settling personal Accident medical bills for injuries along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of accident till realization, to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards costs and further interest.
4). The opposite party remained absent till the completion of the arguments.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-16. Heard the complainant and he also filed his written arguments
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2,98,700/- towards damage to vehicle, to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Personal Accident Benefit along with costs of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant insured his vehicle in question with the appellant/opposite party and obtained insurance policy in question for the period from 16.03.2013 to 15.03.2014 vide Ex.A9. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 21.05.2013 when the respondent/complainant driving the vehicle and Ex.A1 is the FIR Dt.21.05.2013 Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed by the PS., Panyam, Kurnool District before the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Nandyal evidencing. There is also no dispute that the policy was in force when the vehicle met with an accident. There is also no dispute that the respondent/complainant possessed valid driving licence on the date of the accident. Ex.A3 and A4 shows that the complainant sustained grievous injuries and resident medical officer of the SAI KRISHNA SUPER SPECIALITY NEURO HOSPITAL issued injury certificate by stating “the said complainant named Mr. B.Srisailam was admitted in the hospital vide IPN 3928” on 21.05.2013 and he was treated by Dr. T.V.Srinivas, Neuro Surgeon for Head injury due to RTA with Brain Stem Bleed with Intra Ventricular Extension and he was discharged on 06.06.2013. EX.A4 discharge summary reveals that the respondent/complainant took treatment at SAI KRISHNA SUPER SPECIALITY NEURO HOSPITAL. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary by the Osmania General Hospital which shows that the respondent/complainant admitted on 06.07.2013 and he was undergone surgery / therapy on 19.07.2013 and discharged on 22.07.2013 and in the said discharge summary the final diagnosis mentioned as “ORIF WITH DHS” and the surgical procedure was mentioned as surgical correction of long bone fracture (S15.1.1). As per the pleadings and evidence of the complainant that his vehicle was completely damaged in the said incident and he also suffered severe / grievous injuries. Ex. A15 shows that he was treated in the above hospital and incurred medical expenses of Rs.3,01,463/-. As per the evidence of the respondent/ complainant the appellant /opposite party despite receiving the claim and also shifting his vehicle to their SRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE at Attapur office they have chosen neither to settle the claim nor repudiated the claim, which is nothing but deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
11) It is the contention of the respondent/complainant that despite receipt of legal notice from the appellant/complainant on 28.11.2014, the appellant/ opposite party did not settle the claim amount and even the appellant/opposite party did not choose to appear before the Forum despite receiving notice from the Forum, hence the District Forum on the basis of the material available on record passed the impugned order on merits.
12) Aggrieved by the said order the appeal preferred by the appellant/ opposite party, their counsel argued that as per the policy there will be coverage for PA claim only in case of accidental death, permanent disablement on account of accident including loss of limbs and eyes but not for any other simple injuries sustained in the said accident, hence the claim is not maintainable and further their surveyor has assessed the damage to the insured vehicle at Rs.1,29,000/- only. Even at this appellate stage also, the appellant/opposite did not choose to file the surveyor’s report assessing the loss of the vehicle in support of their contention. The appellant did not choose to file any rule/condition in support of their contention with regard to the personal Accident. Ex.A-3 Medical certificate, Ex.A4 Discharge summary and the medical bills submitted by the respondent/complainant vide Ex.A15 would go to show that he sustained Grievous injuries. Counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that after filing of EA 5 of 2017, the appellant/opposite party deposited the entire amount of Rs.5,03,3700/-and kept it in FD until the disposal of the appeal. The District Forum, relying on the policy in force, valid driving licence and Grievous injuries suffered by the respondent/complainant and non-settlement of the claim, came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service and awarded an amount of Rs.2,98,700/- towards damages of the vehicle and Rs.2,00,000/- towards personal accident benefit vide Ex.A9 policy. We do not have any contradictory view against this. There are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
13). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ opposite party and there are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
14). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 23.09.2015 in CC 17 of 2015 passed by the District Forum-I, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 27.12.2017.
