0BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President And Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member And Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member Tuesday the 6th day of November, 2012 C.C.No.19/2012 Between: A.Thirumalesh Reddy, S/o Late A.Rama Chandra Reddy, H.No.A-4-B-12, Shilpa Singapur Township, Kurnool – 518 007. …Complainant -Vs- 1. The Branch Manager, M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, U Con Plaza, II Floor, Park Road, Kurnool – 518 001. 2. The Zonal Manager, Zone – B, Issue Office, M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, H.No.10-3-56/4/1, 1st Floor, East Marredpally, Secunderabad – 500 026. 3. M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-B, EPIP RICO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur – 302 022. ...Opposite ParTies This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.K.Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate for complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party No.3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following. ORDER (As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member) C.C. No.19/2012 1. This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties for the payment of :- (a) Insurance claim of Rs.4,15,026/- being the cost of spare parts and labour charges for his damaged car; (b) Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony; (c) Rs.2,000/- as cost of the complaint; 2. The complaint in brief is that complainant insured his car bearing No.AP21 P 6138 with opposite parties under the policy bearing Noi.417052/31/12/002338 dated 26-05-2011. The premium of Rs.7,577/- through a cheque bearing No.078720dated 21-04-2011 was paid to the insurance company by the finance company form the loan amount sanctioned to him for the purchase of car. The car met with an accident on 30-07-2011 at about 18.30 hours on N.H.7 near Kurnool due to sudden application of breaks by the complainant as road was drizzling and all of a sudden a dog came running across the road. The car hit the metal frame of the hoarding built across the road and got damaged its front side. The complainant sustained minor injuries. The police upon the re quest of the complainant inspected the vehicle at the scene of the accident and issued a certificate to that effect. The opposite party No.1 after receiving intimation from the complainant appointed a spot surveyor who in his report stated that the accident occurred due to sudden application of breaks and assured the payment of claim soon to the complainant. The damaged vehicle was shifted to Crafts Men’s Motors, Kurnool, who has tie up with TATA Motors. He estimated the cost of spare parts at Rs.3,51,726/- and labour charges Rs.63,330/- totaling to Rs.4,15,056/-. The same was informed to opposite parties by the complainant as he is not in a position to afford to pay first and claim later. The IDV for the insured car is valued at Ra.1,75,000/-. The claim was registered with opposite parties vide No.10000/31/12/C/022703 during the 1st week of September, 2011. The claim was rejected by opposite party No.3 on 20-10-2011 on the ground that the car was fitted with a LPG Kit, though it is nothing to do with the accident. The LPG Kit was safe and there was no damage to it. No gas was in the Kit and the vehicle was run on petrol at the time of the accident. Opposite parties took the objection only to evade the claim. Having vexed with adament and deceptive attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 01-11-2011 to him. Opposite party No.3 neither replied nor paid the claim though he received the notice. Hence this complaint is filed before this Forum for redress and justice. 3. The complainant filed documents marked as Ex.A1 to A17 and sworn affidavit to support his case. A memo dated 08-10-2012 enclosing two quotations is also filed by the complainant. 4. Opposite party No.3 filed his written version denying his liability to the complainants claim. Opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 refused to receive the notice and found absent. Opposite party No.3 admitted that the complainant insured his car bearing No.AP21 P 6138 for IDV of Rs.1,75,000/- for a period from 26-05-2011 to 25-05-2012 under the policy bearing No.417052/31/12/002338. The vehicle met with an accident on 30-07-2011. The policy was in force on the date of accident. The car was financed by Shriram City Finance Limited, Kurnool. The complainant hypothecated his car to the finance company. So finance company is the sole owner until the loan is repaid and he is necessary party to these proceedings. As soon as opposite party No.1 received intimation about complainant’s car accident on N.H.7 near Manasa Daba, Kurnool, he appointed Sri.K.Ramesh for spot survey. The spot surveyor submitted his report with details of damages to the insured vehicle. The opposite party appointed another independent insurance surveyor and loss assessor namely “Libra Surveyors Private Limited” to estimate the actual loss. The surveyor in his report dated 25-08-2011 assessed the net loss at Rs.1,90,000/- on repair basis. But the IDV of the insured car was at Rs.1,75,000/- as per the policy. As the assessed loss on repair basis is higher than the IDV, the surveyor suggested salvage loss basis” for claim settlement. At the time of final survey 2 wheel discs with tyres were missing with the insured vehicle. The assessed wreck value is Rs.50,000/- for missing parts. So the complainant is entitled for IDV minus wreck value of (Rs.1,75,000 – Rs.50,000) Rs.1,25,000/- if there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant car was fitted with LPG Kit, unapproved by RTA and has no endorsement in the policy at the time of issue, which amounts to violation of policy terms and conditions. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and repudiated the complainant’s claim. In view of the reasons mentioned above opposite party prayed for the dismissal of case with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- awarding against the complainant. 5. Sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.B1 to B4 are filed in support of opposite party. 6. Both sides filed written arguments. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the complainant made out a case against opposite Parties to prove deficiency? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? iii. To what relief? 8. POINTS I and ii:- Admittedly the complainant vehicle bearing No.AP21 P 6138 was insured with opposite parties under the policy bearing No.417052/31/13/002338 dated 16-05-2011 for the period from 26-05-2011 to 25-05-2012 (Ex.A1/Ex.B1). The car was financed by Shriram City Finance Limited and was hypothecated to it. The car met with an accident on 30-07-2011 near Kurnool due to sudden application of breaks on a drizzling N.H.7 Road as a dog suddenly came running across the road. The car got damaged badly as the car hit the metal frame of the hoarding built across the road. The police inspected the vehicle at the scene of accident and issued a certificate to that effect (Ex.A5). The spot surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 gave the details of damages to the insured vehicle (Ex.B2). The final surveyor namely Libra surveyors Private Limited estimated the loss at Rs.1,90,000/- on repair basis (Ex.B3). But the IDV of insured car was at Rs.1,75,000/- as per the policy. (Ex.A1/Ex.B1). Three wheel discs with tyres were found missing to the insured vehicle at the time of final survey. The car was fitted with LPG Kit unapproved by RTA (Ex.B3). The policy has no endorsement of LPG Kit. The claim was registered with opposite parties during first week of September, 2011 Vide No.10000/31/12/C/022703. The claim was rejected by opposite party No.3 on the ground that complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy (Ex.B4). But LPG Kit was safe and contained no gas in it. The LPG Kit, according to survey reports had no nexus with the cause of accident. In view of citation III (2012) CPJ 729 (NC), though LPG Kit in the car was not permitted as per registration certificate of the car and hence amounted to violation of terms and conditions, the insurance company did not establish whether at the time of accident, the car was actually being run on petrol or LPG and so the hyper-technical view of the matter by opposite parties in repudiating the claim is invalid. The claim according to the final surveyor’s report is payable. 9. POINT No.iii:- The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.4,15,026/- (Rs.3,51,726/- being the cost of spare parts and Rs.63,330/- the labour charges) as estimated by Crafts Men’s Motors. The final surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.1,90,000/- on repaired basis. Whereas the IDV was at Rs.1,75,000/-. The final surveyor suggested “salvage loss basis” for settlement because the assessment is higher than IDV. So the complainant is entitled for IDV of Rs.1,75,000/-. At the time of final survey 3 wheel discs with tyres were found missing with insured car. The wreck value for missing parts assessed by the final surveyor was Rs.50,000/- but the complainant filed a quotation at Rs.13,155/-. The complainant quotation for Rs.13,155/- towards wreck value is found reasonable. Considering all the circumstances the complainant claim payable is IDV of Rs.1,75,000/- deducting wreck value of Rs.13,155/- i.e., 1,61,845/-. As the car was financed and hypothecated to Shriram City Finance Limited, the opposite parties are directed to pay due installments to the finance company out of Rs.1,61,845/- payable to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled compensation for mental agony because, opposite party evaded the claim by taking unreasonable objections. 10. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay 1. The balance amount out of Rs.1,61,845/- payable as insurance claim to the damaged car after paying due installments to Shriram City Finance Limited. 2. Rs.5,000/- as compensation or mental agony. 3. Rs.1,000/- as cost of the case. The time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 6th day of November, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined For the complainant: Nill For the opposite parties : Nill List of exhibits marked for the complainant:- Ex.A1 Certificate cum Policy Schedule No.417052/31/12/002338 issued by the opposite party dated 26-05-2011. Ex.A2 Quotation of repairing by Crafts Men’s Motors dated 18-08-2011. Ex.A3 Driving Licence of the complainant dated 21-04-2011. Ex.A4 R.C. of the Motor Car dated 19-07-2007. Ex.A5 Certificate issued by the Traffic Police, Kurnool dated 24-08-2011. Ex.A6 Letter issued by opposite party No.3 to complainant dated 20-10-2011. Ex.A7 Office copy of Legal Notice to opposite party No.3 dated 01-11-2011. Ex.A8 Postal Receipt. Ex.A9 Postal Acknowledgement Card. Ex.A10 Office copy of Legal Notice to opposite party No.1 dated 23-12-2011. Ex.A11 Office copy of Legal Notice issued by complainant to opposite party No.2 dated 23-12-2011 along with postal Receipt. Ex.A12 Returned Postal Cover along with postal receipt and acknowledgement dated 26-12-2011. Ex.A13 Postal Acknowledgement Card. Ex.A14 Postal Acknowledgement Card. Ex.A15 Photo copy of Cheque bearing No.078720 for Rs.7,577/- dated 21-04-2011. Ex.A16 Photo copy of Cheque bearing No.078721 for Rs.68,090/- dated 21-04-2011. Ex.A17 Photo copy of Medicolegal Certificate dated 31-07-2011. List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Ex.B1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.417052/31/12/002338 along with terms and conditions. Ex.B2 Photo copy of Motor Survey Report (Spot) dated 24-08-2011. Ex.B3 Photo copy of Motor Final Survey Report issued LIBRA Surveyors Private Limited, Chennai dated 25-08-2011. Ex.B4 Photo copy of Letter issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant dated 20-10-2011. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987// Copy to:- Complainant and Opposite parties : Copy was made ready on : Copy was dispatched on : | 
