Between:

J.Sambasiva Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao,

H.No.1/227, Medam Street, Kurnool – 518 001.                                    

        …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited,

H.No.40/383 A, 1^st Floor, Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar,

Kurnool – 518 001.                                                                           ...Opposite ParTy

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.D.A.Anees Ahamed, Advocate for opposite party 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.48/2012

1.     The complainant filed this case against opposite party under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite party for the payment of :-

(a)          Rs.2,76,783/- towards damages of car with 24% per annum interest from 26-02-2012; 

(b)          Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony;

(c)           Cost of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant is that he was the owner of MARUTHI ALTO LXI BSIV bearing No.AP21 AL 5444.  He insured his car with opposite party on 27-12-2011 by paying Rs.9,095/- as premium under the policy bearing No.35101031116130522550 covering own risk for the period from 27-12-2011 to 26-12-2012.  While coming from Guntakal to Kurnool on 26-02-2012, his car was totally damaged in a fire accident.  He intimated about the accident in Guntakal II P.S., and shifted his car to M.S.A. Motors, Kurnool for repair.  He submitted his claim to opposite party.  Opposite party appointed a surveyor  for inspection and  on the basis of surveyor’s report he repudiated the claim on 05-04-2012 on the ground that complainant was plying the car by fitting un authorized L.P.G., violating the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant says that Fire Service Department, Guntakal certified that the cause of fire accident is of electric origin.  The Guntakal Police also certified that car was burnt due to electric short circuit.  Despite the submission of fire certificate and police certificate opposite party refused to settle the claim.  Hence this case is filed by the complainant claiming appropriate reliefs.

3.     The complainant filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to A7 in support of his case. 

4.     Admittedly the issuance of the policy and its terms and conditions opposite party denied his liability to the complainant’s claim.  Opposite party avered that at the time of fire accident the driver and owner of the car jumped out the car not caring for Rs.12,000/- kept in the car with a fear that any moment the cylinder may explode.  They did not even attempt to put off the fire.  The spot surveyor report reveals that the car was fitted with LPG Cylinder violating the terms and conditions of the policy.  The fire accident was due to some jerks and loose connections but not due to electric short circuit as narrated by the complainant.  He also submitted that the photographs of burnt car disclose the fitting of LPG Cylinder, Vaporizer and Solenoid switch to the car.  The final surveyor report also confirmed the above mentioned fittings to the burnt car.  The final surveyor also noticed that RC of the car is not endorsed with the using of LPG by the RTA.  Further the policy reveals that the complainant did not pay extra premium for fitting CNG/LPG kit to his car.  In view of the reasons mentioned above opposite party justified the repudiation of complainant’s claim by him and prayed for the dismissal of the case against him. 

5.     Opposite party filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.B1 to B5.  Sri.A.Nagaraju spot surveyor and Sri.B.P.K.Reddy final surveyor field their sworn affidavits separately on behalf 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 party to prove deficiency?

                    ii.        Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

                  iii.        To what relief?

8.      POINTS i and ii :- Admittedly the complainant insured his Maruthi Alto car with opposite party under the policy bearing No.35101031116130522550 for a period from 27-12-2011 to 26-12-2012 by paying a premium of Rs.9,095/- Ex.A1/Ex.B1 the insurance policy copy.  The complainant car met with a fire accident on 26-02-2012 while coming from Guntakal to Kurnool and suffered huge loss.  The complainant’s claim for the damage was rejected by opposite party on the ground that the car was fitted with un authorized LPG Kit and no extra premium was paid to insured LPG/CMG Kit fitted to the burnt car.  The contention of the complainant is that the fire accident occurred due to electric short circuit in the car, but not due to LPG kit fitting, hence he is entitled for compensation.  Ex.A5 & Ex.A6 certificates issued by fire department and police.  The opposite party is contended that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy by fitting unauthorized LPG Kit to his car and also did not pay extra premium to cover the risk due to LPG Kit fitting.  Ex.A1/Ex.B1 the copy of the policy showing the nonpayment of extra premium for LPG Kit.  The surveyor reports Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 disclose that the car was damaged due to some jerks jolts and loose connections that burnt the LPG, leading to fire accident.  Sri.A.Nagaraju spot surveyor and Sri.B.P.K.Reddy final surveyor filed their sworn affidavits on behalf of opposite party which also reveal that the car was fitted with unauthorized LPG Kit, no extra premium was paid covering the risk due to the kit and the burning of the car was due to jerks jolts and loose connections in the LPG Kit.  The car was registered with RTA with no provision for LPG/CNG use.  Ex.A2 is copy of registration.  It is an admitted position that insured car had been fitted with an LPG kit and the surveyor’s found LPG kit in the car on the day after accident.  The use of LPG as on alternative fuel in the car was not permitted as per RC of the car amounting to violation of terms and conditions of MV Act and policy.  The surveyors in their affidavits averred that “LPG Kit fitted in the car due to which the vehicle was burnt”.  However the insurance company did not place any evidence that the car was actually being run on LPG at the time of accident.  The opposite party repudiated the claim totally taking a hyper technical view on the matter.  The complainant filed a citation III (2012) CPJ 729 (NC) of a case relevant and identical to the case on hand.   In another citation IV (2009) CPJ 46 (SC) it is stated that the surveyor’s report is not the last and final ward for settlement of claim.  For the reasons stated above and in view of the contents of the citations, the Forum holds that complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party entitling him compensation for his burnt car. 

9.      Point No.iii:-The complainant claimed Rs.2,76,783/- with 24% per annum interest from 26-02-2012.  The surveyor though submitted his report had not assessed the loss.  In these circumstances the claim has to be settled on nonstandard basis.  So opposite party is directed to settle the claim on nonstandard basis at 75 % of total ID value of the car.  The complainant is also entitled compensation for causing mental agony.  

10.    In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to settle the claim on 75% of total ID Value of the car. Rs.5,000/- is granted as compensation for mental agony along with Rs.500/- as cost of the case.  The time for compliance is Six weeks 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 15^th day of October, 2012.

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                Photo copy of Policy bearing No.35101031116130522550

                along with conditions.

Ex.A2.       Photo copy of Vehicle Registration Certificate

dated 05-01-2012.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of Driving License dated 16-07-2007.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 05-04-2012.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Fire Service Attendance Certificate

                Rc.No.50/2011-12 dated 03-03-2012.

Ex.A6                Photo copy of Certificate of Guntakal II Town Police Station

                dated 27-02-2012.

Ex.A7                Photo copy of Police Proceedings dated 27-02-2012.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Policy bearing No.35101031116130522550

                along with conditions.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of Intimation Letter dated 06-03-2012.

Ex.B3                Photo copy of Private and Confidential Motor Surveyor

                Report (Final) dated 12-03-2012 along with Xerox photos.

Ex.B4                   Photo copy of Surveyor Report dated 02-04-2012.

Ex.B5                   Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 05-04-2012.

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               :