(a)    To pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards insurance amount;           

(b)    To pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for damages, mental agony and hardship;    

(c)         To pay costs of the complaint;

(d)        To pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of death of the deceased;

 And

 (e)   To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deems fit and proper under the circumstance of the case.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the Mahindra Maxx vehicle bearing No.AP 21 J 0612.  He insured his vehicle with opposite party under policy bearing No.551001/31/09/6100000069.  The period of policy is from 08-04-2009 to 07-04-2010. On 07-04-2009 the S.I. of Police Sanjamala Police Station illegally confiscated the vehicle of the complainant on the ground of having I.M.F.L. Liquor bottles in it.  A case in Crime No.49-2009 under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act of Sanjamala Police Station was registered.   The vehicle was parked in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool.   On 21-12-2009 the Excise Commissioner Hyderabad canceled the confiscated order of the vehicle and ordered for release of vehicle to the owner. When the vehicle was in the custody of the Excise Police Kurnool on 2/3-10-2009 the flood water entered into Kurnool city.  The vehicle of the complainant parked in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool was damaged.  Immediately the complainant met the opposite party and informed about the damage of his vehicle due to flood.   The surveyor of the opposite party visited the vehicle and took photographs of the damaged vehicle.  As the vehicle was in the custody to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool the complainant could not repair it till it is released on 07-01-2010. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool issued proceedings for the release of the vehicle.  After release of the vehicle the complainant met the opposite party number of times.  The opposite party neglected to settle the claim of the complainant.   In the first week of February 2010 the complainant shifted his vehicle to Kadapa and got it repaired by spending an amount of Rs.1,08,680/-.   The opposite party by its letter dated 22-01-2010 informed the complainant that it did not entertain the claim as intimation was given four months after the alleged damage of vehicle.   The delay in intimating in writing is due to confiscation of vehicle by the Excise Department.  The complainant on 24-02-2010 sent a letter to opposite party explaining the reasons for delay.  The opposite party having received the letter dated 24-02-2010 did not settle the claim of the complainant.  Refusal to pay the damages amounts to deficiency of service.   Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the opposite party issued insurance policy bearing No.551001/31/09/6100000069 in favour of the complainant.  The said policy was issued subject to certain conditions.  The opposite party never rejected the claim of the complainant. No claim was received from the complainant till   22-02-2010.  On 22-02-2010 the complainant intimated that his vehicle was damaged.  As per the conditions of the policy, the loss or damage to the vehicle to be informed to the insurer in writing immediately.  The vehicle was confiscated by the Excise Official.   The complainant did not take proper care of the vehicle.  The insurance company is not liable for any consequential loss due to negligence on the part of the complainant.  The opposite party cannot be blamed.  The complainant carried the repairs without notice to the opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party is not liable to pay any loss or damage.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy there is negligence on the part of opposite party and present claim is not maintainable.   The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  The complainant also filed five 3^rd party affidavits.  On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavit of Divisional Manager Kurnool is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

a)                   Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

b)                   Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

c)                   To what relief?

7.     POINTS 1 & 2:- Admittedly the opposite party issued Ex.B1 insurance policy in favour of the complainant.  The vehicle bearing No.AP 21 J 0162 belonging to the complainant was insured under Ex.B1 policy.  The period of policy is from 08-04-2009 to 07-04-2010.  It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle bearing No.AP 21 J 0162 was seized by the S.I. Police Sanjamala Police Station on 07-04-2009 and registered a case in Crime No.49/2009 under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act of Sanjamala Police Station.  It is further case of the complainant that the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool confiscated the said vehicle and parked the same in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool.  Ex.A2 is the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool dated 07-01-2010.  There is a clear mention in Ex.A2 that the vehicle of the complainant was confiscated by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool, and later the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Hyderabad ordered for the release of the vehicle to the complainant by cancelling the confiscated order of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool. Ex.A2 proceeding of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool is dated 07-01-2010.  The vehicle of the complainant was in the custody of the Excise Police till 07-01-2010.

8.     It is the case of the complainant that when the vehicle was in the custody of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool, there was a heavy flood in the Kurnool Town on 2/3-10-2009 and that vehicle of the complainant was badly damaged due to the flood water.  Except the affidavit evidence of the complainant there is no independent evidence on record to show that his vehicle was damaged due to flood water on 2/3-10-2009. According to the complainant the vehicle was with the Excise Police when there was flood in the Town.  The complainant has not chosen to file the affidavit evidence of Excise Officials to show that his vehicle was damaged an account of the floods on 2/3-10-2009. According to the complainant his vehicle was taken into custody by police on 07-04-2009 and that he took back the vehicle in the month of February. 2010.  Admittedly the vehicle was kept idle and it was not in use from 07-04-2009 to February, 2010.  As the vehicle was parked in the open place in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Kurnool for more than 10 months the vehicle must have been damaged.  It is not the case of the complainant that he took proper care to protect his vehicle from 07-04-2009 to February, 2010.  The main contention of the opposite party is that it was not informed about the alleged damage of the vehicle by the complainant immediately.  According to the complainant his vehicle was damaged due to flood water on 2/3-10-2009, that he immediately informed the same to opposite party and that the opposite party appointed a surveyor.  Except the affidavit evidence of the complainant there is no material on record to show that the complainant informed about the alleged damage of the vehicle to the opposite party and that the opposite party appointed a surveyor.  According to the opposite party the complainant did not inform about the alleged damage to his vehicle till 22-02-2010. 

9.     According to the complainant he spent an amount of Rs.1,08,680/- towards repairs of the vehicle and that the opposite party failed to settle his claim in spite of the demand notice Ex.A7 dated 24-02-2010.  According to the opposite party that it is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the complainant failed to inform about the alleged damage to his vehicle immediately in writing.  The opposite party filed Ex.B1 policy along with terms and conditions. As per condition No.1, insured shall give notice in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage.  As already stated there is no material on record to show that the complainant intimated about the alleged damage caused to the vehicle immediately in writing.  The complainant waited for four months and then intimated to the opposite party about the damage to the vehicle.    The opposite party had no occasion to visit the vehicle of the complainant and to verify whether it was damaged due to floods occurred on 2/3-10-2009.  The complainant filed bunch of bills (Ex.A3) to show that he spent an amount of Rs.1,08,680/-.  The complainant also filed third party affidavits to establish that he spent the amounts for getting his vehicle repaired.  The complainant slept over for four months after the floods. No permission was obtained by the complainant from the opposite party to get his vehicle repaired.  There is also no material to show that the complainant informed the opposite party that his vehicle was ceased by the Excise Police on 07-04-2010. There was negligence on the part of the complainant in intimating about the alleged damage in writing to the opposite party.  The opposite party rightly refused to pay the amount to the complainant as the complainant did not inform about the alleged damage of the vehicle immediately in writing.  The complainant himself without knowledge of the opposite party got his vehicle repaired.  The opposite party had no occasion to visit the damaged vehicle before the vehicle was got repaired in the month of February, 2010.  No deficiency of service is found on the part of   the opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 

10.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the day 20^th of July, 2011.

        Sd/-                                 Sd/-                        Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                         PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

                                           APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill              For the opposite party: Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                National Insurance Policy No.551001/31/09/6100000069.

Ex.A2.       Proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise,

Kurnool dated 07-01-2010.

Ex.A3                A bunch of bills (21).

Ex.A4                Photo copy of letter by complainant to Deputy

                Commissioner of prohibition and Excise, Kurnool.

Ex.A5                Letter dated 22-02-2010 by OP to complainant.

Ex.A6                Office copy of representation letter by complainant to

opposite party.

Ex.A7                Office copy of letter dated 24-02-2010 by complainant to

opposite party.

Ex.A8                Two Photos.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-

Ex.B1        Photo copy of policy No.551001/31/09/6100000069 along with terms and conditions.

Ex.B2        Photo copy of Letter dated 22-02-2010 by opposite party to complainant.

Ex.B3                Photo copy of letter dated 14-04-2010 by opposite party to

complainant.

        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               :