BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Tuesday, 22nd April 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 63/ 2013
S. Mastan, S/o Mab Sab, Muslim,
Owner of the Travera Vehicle bearing
No. AP 16 BC : 0639, Resident of D.No. 13/105,
Porumamilla Post, Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
D.No. 7/330, 331, 2nd floor, Opp. B.V.S Theatre,
Sivalayam Street, Proddatur – 516 360,
Kadapa District. ….. Opposite party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 21-4-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri J. Ravi, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Goutham Kumar, Advocate for Opposite party and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 seeking direction from the Opposite party:-
(a) Direct the opposite party to pay the claim complainant for Rs. 1,03,700/- to the complainant with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. from 14-11-2012 to till realization,
(b) Direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and inconvenience caused to him.
(c) Direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of complaint and also direct for such other and further reliefs as such the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the dispute.
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is the owner of Travera vehicle bearing No. AP 16 BC : 0639. The complainant has insured his vehicle with the opposite party company vide policy No. 551005/31/11/6100001755 which commence from 00.00 clock hours on 15-11-2011 to mid-night of 14-11-2012 i.e. till 12.00 p.m on 14-12-2012. The complainant friend by name Munaganuru Krishna Reddy of Moragudi village of Jammalamadugu has taken the vehicle for attending a function of his relatives at Kurnool. He started his journey at about 9.00 p.m and the said vehicle driver by name Ravi of Proddatur. The vehicle has reached Gulamnabipeta village of Banaganapalli road at about 10-00 p.m on 14-11-2012. The driver of the Travera vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the vehicle due to the lighting of other vehicle in front of the complainant’s vehicle on the road, he could not observe the Bullock cart passing in front of the vehicle and dashed the complainant’s vehicle to the said bullock cart. The travera vehicle of the complainant and bullock cart are completely damaged. The father of the Krishna Reddy sustained severe injuries and immediately, the injured was taken at community health center, Banaganapalli at about 10.50 p.m. The injured succumbed with injuries at 11.00 p.m on 14-11-2012 at Community Health Center, Banaganapalli while undergone treatment. The admission number of the patient is 3908/M and Civil Assistant Surgeon, Banaganapalli gave a certificate to that effect on 27-11-2012.
3. It is further stated that Krishna Reddy, who is friend of complainant went to the police station Banaganapalli and gave a complaint at it was late night and the police registered above case Cr. No. 160/2012 and investigated and the Civil Assistant Surgeon has conducted post mortem, the dead body of the deceased on the next day at 1.30 p.m. The police after detailed investigation has laid charge sheet in the above case against the driver of Travera vehicle.
4. The complainant further stated that after knowing the incident the complainant immediately has informed about the accident to the opposite party and the opposite party has deputed his surveyor and conducted spot survey for the damages of the vehicle of the complainant. After conducting spot survey the opposite party handed over the damaged vehicle to the complainant for necessary repairs to the road worthy. The complainant taken his vehicle and got repaired the same to road worthy by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 1,03,700/- after completion of repairs the complainant has made a claim for the above amount for Rs. 1,03,700/- with original bills with all necessary documents i.e. FIR, Post mortem, doctor certificate to the opposite party. After receipt of the claim from opposite party has also conducted investigation in the above matter through company investigator and also enquired with the police, doctor and confined that the accident occurred within the policy is inforce. In spite of receipt of the claim of the complainant with true facts the claim of the complaint has repudiated on 19-6-2013 by the opposite party with an untenable reasons that there is no evidence submitted in support of accident which took place at 10.00 p.m on 14-11-2013 and also stated that the claim was not intimated on the same day.
5. It is further stated that after receiving letter the complainant immediately contacted with the opposite party and has shown all the relevant documents with respect time of accident. But the opposite party has not responded properly and thrown the burden on his higher officials. The complainant several times requested the opposite party to settle the claim but the opposite party has not responded property. Hence, this complaint.
6. The Opposite party filed counter denying all the allegations made in the complaint and admitted that the complainant is owner of the aforesaid vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party company vide policy No. 551005/31/6100001755 valid from 00.00 clock on 15-11-2011 to mid-night of 14-11-2012 and alleged accident took place at 10.00 p.m on 14-11-2012 and the complainant failed to submit authenticated documentary proof to show that the alleged accident took place at 10.00 p.m on 14-11-2012. The complainant has preferred the dhava to the concerned police on the next day i.e. on 15-11-2011 at about 8.00 hours which is at distance of 8 Kms from the place of the accident and the claim was not intimated on the same day to the opposite party and more over the policy was not renewed well in advance. The complainant has managed the authorities and obtained a certificate issued by the doctor mentioning the death of the person on 14-11-2012 at about 11.00 p.m in order to cover the policy and to get unlawful gain. The opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim through a letter dt. 19-6-2013 that the reason, opposite party did not issued any reply to the legal notice. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
7. To prove his case the complainant filed affidavit along with documents and got marked Ex. A1 to A11. To disprove the case the O.P filed documents and got marked Ex. B1.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of their opposite party?
- To what relief?
9. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The contention of the complainant is that the complainant is the registered owner of the aforesaid and it was insured with the Opposite company vide policy No. 551005/31/11/6100001755 and it was commenced from 00.00 clock hours on 15-11-2011 to mid-night of 14-11-2012 i.e. till 12.00 p.m.on 14-11-2012. The complainant friend by name Munaganuru Krishna Reddy, has taken the vehicle of the complainant to attend a function of his relatives at Kurnool on that day at about 10.00 p.m the vehicle met with an accident at Gulamnabipeta village of Banaganapalli. The father of Krishna Reddy has sustained with severe injuries and injured was taken to the Community Health Center, Banaganapalli at about 10.50 p.m. the injured succumbed and the Civil Assistant Surgeon was conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased on the next day at 1.30 p.m. After knowing the incident the complainant immediately has informed about the accident to the opposite party and the opposite party deputed his surveyor and conducted spot survey for the damages vehicle to the complainant. The opposite party handed over damaged vehicle to the complainant the complainant has taken his vehicle and got repaired the same to road worthy, by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 1,03,700/- and the complainant has made claim for the above amount of Rs. 1,03,700/- with original bills and all necessary documents.
10. The opposite party received the same and repudiated the claim of the complainant, with the reasons that there is no evidence submitted in support of accident with took place at 10.00 p.m on 14-11-2012 and also stated that the claim was not intimated on the say day.
11. On the other hand the opposite party admitted that the complainant is the owner of the aforesaid and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party company vide policy No. 551005/31/11/6100001755 validity from 00.00 clock hours on 15-11-2011 to mid-night of 14-11-2012.
12. The main contention of the opposite party is that the validity of the policy was expired at midnight 12.00 p.m on 14-11-2012 and the alleged accident took place at 10.00 p.m on 14-11-2012 and the complainant did not filed authenticated documents to prove that the alleged accident took place at 10.00 p.m on 14-11-2012 and the complainant reported to the police on the next day on 15-11-2012 at about 8.00 hours, which is at distance of 8 Kms. from the place of accident and the claim was intimated on the same day to the opposite party. It is also contended that the policy was not renewed well inadvance.
13. We have gone through the complaint, counter and documents filed by both sides Ex. A1 to Ex. A11 and Ex. B1. As seen from Ex. A2 it is admitted that the complainant is the owner of the aforesaid and it is insured with opposite party company under Ex. A3 and Ex. B1. The main contention of the opposite party is that the validity of the policy was expired at mid night 12.00 p.m on 14-11-2012 and the complaint failed to submit authenticated documentary proof to show that the alleged accident took place at 10.00 p.m on 14-11-2012 and the complainant has managed the authorities and obtained certificate issued by the doctor by mentioning the death of person on 14-11-2012 at about 11.00 p.m in order to cover the policy and to get unlawful gain. In this regard the opposite party did not proved their allegations that the complainant managed authorities and obtained certificate. Hence, the contention of the opposite party is not tenable.
14. As per Ex. A8 i.e. post mortem certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Banaganapalli, it clearly shows that in the said accident the father of Krishna Reddy, sustained severe injuries and the deceased admitted in the Community Health Center, Banaganapali in Admission No. 3908/M and he succumbed at 11.00 p.m on 14-11-2012. Hence, it is clear that the vehicle met with accident on 14-11-2012 at 10.00 p.m and also seen from Ex. A4 i.e. FIR, No. 160/2012 clearly shows that the accident occurred on 14-11-2012 at 22.00 hours. The opposite party also contended that the policy was not renewed well in advance. As seen from Ex. A3 and B1 the policy is inforce on 14-11-2012 at mid night 12.00 p.m. Merely renews the policy next day of expiry. Hence, the contention of the opposite party is not acceptable. As seen from Ex. A1 bills (12 numbers). It reveals that the complainant incurred Rs. 1,03,700/- for repairing of his vehicle. The above discussion in the circumstances of the case the complainant proved deficiency in service of the opposite party. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,03,700/- i.e. which is incurred by him for repairs of damaged vehicle.
15. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 1,03,700/- (one lakh three thousand seven hundred) towards expenditure for repairs of vehicle, Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony, to pay Rs. 2,000/- for cost of complaint, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 22nd April 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex: A1 Xerox copies of the bills 12 in number for Rs.1,03,700-00.
Ex: A2 Xerox copy of Registration Certificate.
Ex: A3 Xerox copy of policy certificate issued by the respondent company.
Ex: A4 Xerox copy of First Information Report in Cr. No.160/2012 of
Banaganapalli Policy Station.
Ex: A5 Xerox copy of P.M. Certificate of M. Venkata Reddy.
Ex: A6 Xerox copy of Death Certificate of M. Venkata Reddy.
Ex: A7 Xerox copy of Driving License of driver who drove the vehicle
while at the time of accident.
Ex: A8 Xerox copy of certificate dt.27-11-2012 issued by the
Civil Assistant Surgeon Community Health Centre, Banaganapalli.
Ex: A9 Original Repudiation letter dt. 19-6-2013.
Ex: A10 Office copy of legal notice dt. 01-07-2013.
Ex: A11 Original Postal Acknowledgement Dt. 2-7-2013.
Exhibits marked for Opposite party : -
Ex. B1 Original policy copy issued by the respondent company, dt. 15-11-2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri J. Ravi, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri P. Goutham Kumar, Advocate for Opposite party
B.V.P. - - -
