THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 20th day of February, 2015
C.C.No.86/2013
Between:
N.Venkata Reddy,
S/o Venkata Siva Reddy,
Aged about 51 Years,
H.No.13/73/1, Madhura Nagar,
Ramanthapur,
Hyderabad-500 099. …Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
H.No.14-494, Near Bus Stand,
Gandhi Road,
Madanapalli-517 325,
Chittoor District. …OPPOSITE PARty
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.Eskala Sreenivasulu, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, President)
C.C. No.86/2013
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,12,119/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident i.e., 24.12.2012 till the date of realization.
- To grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony.
- To grant the costs of this complaint.
And
- To grant any other relief as this Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the complaint in brief run as follows:- The complainant is the owner of the Maruthi Swift VDI Car bearing No.AP28 CC0657. The opposite party is the insurer of the said vehicle. The opposite party issued the policy in favour of the complainant under policy bearing No.61270231110100003125 and the same was valid from 11.01.2012 to 10.01.2013. on 24.12.2012 when the complainant was proceeding from his village Chikatimanaplli to Hyderabad along with his family, when he reached near Kottam Engineering College on the out skirts of the Chinnatekur Village, at about 11.00 A.M., suddenly the front left tire of the said car got burst. Due to it the complainant who was driving the vehicle lost control over the steering and the said car fell in the bushy pit which was on the left side of the road and the car badly damaged. The complainant informed about the accident to the Ulindakonda Police. They enquired about the incident and issued damage certificate about the incident. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party about the accident. He shifted the damaged vehicle to Bombay Auto Garage which is situated in Vanijya Nagar, Hyderabad Road Kurnool. They assessed the damage at about Rs.3,12,119/-.
The complainant submitted claim form along with relevant documents to the opposite party. The surveyor of the opposite party estimated the loss. Even though 7 months elapsed, opposite party did not choose to settle the claim amount, inspite of several visits made by the complainant to the Office of opposite party, at Madhanapalli. The complainant suffered a lot of inconvenience and mental agony because of the negligent attitude of the opposite party. There is clear cut deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not settling the claim even after lapse of 7 months from the date of accident. Hence he prays to pass an order in his favour and against the opposite party by directing
- To pay Rs.3,12,119/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident i.e., 24.12.2012 to till the date of realization.
- To grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony.
- To grant the costs of the complaint.
3. On service of notice the authorized counsel authority of Divisional Office of opposite party, at Kurnool engaged counsel and filed vakalath on behalf of the opposite party. The sum and substance of the written version filed on behalf of the opposite party in brief run as follows. They admitted with regard to ownership of the vehicle by the complainant. They also admitted about issuance of the policy in favour of the complainant under policy bearing No.61270231110100003125 after insuring the vehicle bearing No.AP28 CC 0657. But in para 3 of the written version they stated “it is in correct to say that the same was valid from 11.01.2012 to 10.01.2013”. The said policy was cancelled and the same was informed to the complainant to the effect that the opposite party is not on risk from 14.09.2012. The said letter was sent to the address of the complainant by the registered post with Acknowledgement due. The complainant is aware of the said fact. The rest of the allegations in para 1 that on 24.12.2012 when the complainant as a driver, driving the car and proceeding from his Village to Hyderabad along with family, suddenly the front left tire of the Car got burst near Kottam Engineering College at about 11.00 A.M., he lost control of the string and the vehicle fell into bushy pit at left side of the road and about issuance of damage certificate by Ulindakonda Police Station etc., are not correct and they have to be strictly proved by the complainant. The complainant also has to strictly prove that the assessment made by the Bombay Auto Guarage to the damaged vehicle at Rs.3,12,119/- is proper and correct. All those allegations are denied in the written version filed on behalf of opposite party.
The allegations made in para 2 of the complaint are not correct. It is false to say that the complainant submitted claim form with relevant documents to the opposite party. It is also not correct to say the surveyor of the opposite party estimated the loss, but the opposite party not settled the amount even after 7 months of the incident. It is not correct to say that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party in not settling the claim and due to it, the complainant suffered any mental agony. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.
The complainant made 3 claims prior to cancellation of the policy and hence he is aware of the claim procedure. On 17.01.2012 the complainant submitted claim form with regard first accident and this opposite party settled for a sum of Rs.9,034/-. He submitted another claim form with regard second accident and the same was settled for a sum of Rs.6,080/-. The complainant also submitted claim form with regard to third accident on 30.04.2013 and the same was paid to Sri.Durga Automotives Company at request of the complainant. The complainant failed to inform about the alleged accident dated 24.12.2012 to this opposite party. The complainant is aware of the cancellation of the policy by this opposite party by that time. Hence the complainant created a certificate alleged to have been issued by the police to lay a false claim. The complainant never informed about the accident dated 24.12.2012 to this opposite party and he did not submit any claim forms as required for settlement. The complainant should immediately inform about the accident to the insurer, to give an opportunity to inspect and assess the damages caused to the vehicle on the accident spot.
The policy was cancelled due to bad claim experience. As per letter dated 07.09.2012. The opposite party is not on risk from 14.09.2012. Though the complainant aware of the same filed the present CC with false allegations to have unlawful gain. According to the conditions No.5 of the Private Car Package Policy, the policy was cancelled. Due to it this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence he prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. In support of the contention of the complainant he filed sworn affidavit by narrating the facts about ownership of the vehicle, its insurance with opposite party, issuance of the policy by opposite party under policy bearing No.61270231110100003125, its validity 11.01.2012 to 10.01.2013, occurrence of the accident on 24.12.2012 at 11.00 A.M. near Kottam Engineering College of Chinnatekur Village, giving information about the accident to S.H.O., Ulindakonda P.S. and about issuance of certificate by them with regard to the said accident. Non settlement of the claim by the opposite party inspite of the repeated visits made by the complainant. Apart from sworn affidavit, he also produced Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 in support of his contention. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Policy issued by the opposite party, Ex.A2 is the photo copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle bearing No.AP28 CC 0657, Ex.A3 is the photo copy of Damage Certificate issued by SHO, Ulindakonda P.S., Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Driving License, Ex.A5 is the photo copy of Invoice given by Bombay Auto Guarage by assessing the amount i.e., required to effect repairs to the damage vehicle, Ex.A6 is the photo copy of Estimation issued by Bombay Auto Guarage.
The complainant also examined, independent surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle to assess its damage and submitted report to opposite party as PW1 and he also marked Ex.X1 through PW1. PW1 clearly stated in his evidence on the request of the opposite party, he inspected the vehicle bearing No.AP28 CC 0657 in Bombay Auto Guarage, Kurnool, assessed its damage submitted report to opposite party, the office copy of which is marked as Ex.X1. As per Ex.X1 he assessed the net loss at Rs.1,58,250/-.
After closer of the evidence on behalf of the complainant, the Senior Divisional Manager of the New India Assurance Company Limited, Kurnool filed a sworn affidavit in support of the contention of the opposite party and marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7. In the sworn affidavit he stated policy was issued in favour of the complainant under Ex.A3 and the same was cancelled on 07.09.2012 because of the bad claims of the complainant and the same was intimated to the complainant by registered post acknowledgement due. In that cancellation letter it is clearly mentioned policy will not be in force with effect from 14.09.2012 onwards and the opposite party will not at risk from 14.09.2012 onwards. The opposite party is not having any knowledge about the accident alleged to have been taken on 24.12.2012 at 11.00 A.M. near Kottam Engineering College on the out skirt of the Chinnatekur Village. The damage certificate alleged to have obtained from Ulindakonda P.S. is not correct and it is managed. The complainant ought to have been informed to the opposite party, immediately after the accident, so that this opposite party had an opportunity to send its surveyor to the spot to assess the damage caused to the vehicle, due to alleged accident. It is not the case that the complainant has no knowledge about the procedure to be followed to make claim. Prior to cancellation of the policy, the complainant submitted claim forms on 3 occucations when he counsel the accident and all those amounts were settled by the opposite party earlier. It is not known why the complainant did not choose to intimate to the opposite party immediately after the accident and why he did not submitted the claim forms to the opposite party. As there was no subsisting policy issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant as on 24.12.2012, the question of awarding any amount against this opposite party does not arise. Hence he prays to dismiss the complaint with costs. Apart from his sworn affidavit, he is relaying on Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 which are marked on behalf of opposite party. Ex.B1 is the letter dated 07.09.2012 addressed to the complainant, Ex.B2 is the returned postal cover addressed to the complainant with acknowledgement due, Ex.B3 is the photo copy of Policy bearing No.61270231110100003125, Ex.B4 is the Claim Intimation Letter dated 17.01.2012 relating to 1st accident, Ex.B5 is the Claim Intimation Letter relating to 2nd accident, Ex.B6 is the Loss/Damage Intimation Letter dated 30.04.2012 relating to 3rd accident, Ex.B7 is the Private Car Package Policy.
5. After closer of evidence on behalf of both parties, written arguments submitted by both counsel in support of their respective contentions. They reiterated the contention of the complainant and written version of the complainant and opposite party respectively in their written arguments.
The counsel for the complainant submitted in his oral arguments immediately after the accident, the complainant informed the same to the opposite party. He instructed the independent surveyor to inspect the damage vehicle and assess the loss caused to the vehicle due to the said accident. The independent surveyor inspected damaged vehicle in Bombay Auto Guarage on 31.12.2012 and prepared a detailed estimation by deducting depreciation and non claimable amount. Those details are clearly available under Ex.X1. The contention of the opposite party about the cancellation policy under Ex.B1, and sending intimation to the complainant under Ex.B2 is not proper and correct. They have not intimated the same to the complainant. The complainant did not receive any such cancellation letter from the opposite party at any time. He came to know about it for the first time, when the opposite party filed written version before this Forum. Even if they have did something behind back of the complaint, it is not binding on him. If really they have cancelled the policy as stated by them there was no need for the opposite party to give direction to the independent surveyor on 30.12.2012 to inspect the damaged vehicle and assess the damage caused to the vehicle. The act of opposite party in giving such instructions to the independent surveyor made it clear they did not cancel the policy till the date of giving instructions to the independent surveyor and they have created to Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 subsequently with anti-date after filing of this CC, with the sole intention to avoid their responsibility in settling the claim of the complainant, which they ought to settle under Ex.A1. Non settling of the claim, till the date of the filing of the CC and taking false pleas in this CC, clearly establish as the negligent attitude of the opposite party in settling the genuine claim of complainant and thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence he prays to allow the CC and to pass an order in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party by directing it to pay a sum of Rs.3,12,119/- with interest at 24% from the date of accident till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation for causing mental agony and costs of this CC.
The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted in his oral arguments. Complainant did not inform about the accident to this opposite party, immediately after the accident. It is not the case that the complainant that he had no knowledge about the procedure that has to be followed in making claim. He made claims on 3 occasions prior to 24.12.2012 under the same policy and all those claims were settled by the opposite party. Silence on the part of the complainant in not submitting claim forms with regard to the accident alleged to have been taken place on 24.12.2012 is, as he had knowledge about cancellation of policy and the letter sent by the opposite party to him under Ex.B1, through registered post acknowledgement due in which it is mentioned the policy issued in his favour was cancelled with effect from 14.09.2012 due to bad claims made by him. If the complainant informed about the accident to the opposite party immediately after the accident, the opposite party might have got an opportunity to send its surveyor to the accident spot and to make assessment about the actual damage caused to the vehicle due to the said accident. The damage certificate obtained from Ulindaknoda P.S. which is marked as Ex.A3 is managed one and is not true genuine certificate. After cancelling the policy the same was intimated to the complainant by sending the same to his last known address by registered post with acknowledgement due and the said registered postal cover addressed to the opposite party was returned. Hence it is clear that there is proper intimation to the complainant about the cancellation of the policy with effect from 14.09.2012 onwards. As there was no subsisting policy issued in favour of the complainant on the date of alleged accident, the question of passing any order in favour of the complainant and against this opposite party for any amount does not arise. Hence he prays to dismiss the CC without costs.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether the cancellation of the policy alleged to have been made by the opposite party is proper and correct?
- Whether there is proper intimation of the cancellation of policy to the complainant?
- If so? To what relief the complainant is entitled?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Collection of the premium from the complainant and insurance of the policy under policy bearing No.61270231110100003125 to the complainant and its validity from 11.01.2012 to 10.01.2013 are admitted facts. According to the opposite party they have cancelled the policy on 07.09.2012 due to bad claim experience. The policy is marked as Ex.A1 and the cancellation letter is marked as Ex.B1. As seen from Ex.B1 it is clear it was issued by the Branch Manager of New India Assurance Company Limited, Madanapalle Branch. In order to substantiate the contention of opposite party, the authorized signatory of the Divisional Office of the New India Assurance Company filed Vakalath written version, sworn affidavit and etc. The person who filed written version and sworn affidavit is not having personal knowledge over the facts of the defence taken by opposite party in this CC. Manager of the Madanapalle Branch is the person who issued the policy under Ex.A1, who cancelled the policy under Ex.B1 and who informed the same to complainant under Ex.B2. Opposite party is not coming forward with any explanation for non examination of Manager of opposite party to speak about the facts of their defence who is having direct knowledge over the same. The counsel for opposite party submitted authorized signatory is the proper person to sue or to be sued on behalf of opposite party. But nothing prevented the opposite party to examine the person who knew about the facts of the case. Ex.B1 is silent under which provision or condition they cancelled policy covered under Ex.A1. But the counsel for opposite party submitted in his oral arguments under condition No.5 of Ex.B7 they issued proceedings under original of Ex.B1 by cancelling the policy covered under Ex.A1. The condition No.5 of Ex.B7 reads “The company may cancel the policy by sending seven days notice by recorded delivery to the insured at insured’s last known address and in such event will return to the insured the premium paid loss the pro-rata portion thereof for the period the policy has been in force or the policy may be cancelled at any time by the insured on seven days notice by recorded delivery and provided no claim has arisen during the currency of the policy, the insured shall be entitled to a return of premium less premium at the Company’s Short period rates for the period the policy has been in force. Return of the premium by the company will be subject to retention of the minimum premium of Rs.100/-”. Either written version filed on behalf of the opposite party or in the sworn affidavit filed by the Senior Divisional Manager of the opposite party Company or in Ex.B1 or in the written or oral arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party it is not mentioned whether condition No.5 of Ex.B7 is complied or not, whether they have returned the premium paid by the complainant less the pro-rata portion thereof for the period the policy has been in force. Ex.B7 is the Private Car Package Policy. It is not mentioned any where under Ex.B7 when and how the insurance company can cancel the policy once issued in favour of the insured except in condition No.5. It is not mentioned in Ex.B7 that the policy can be cancelled if the insured vehicle involved in the accident for more than two or three times the policy can be cancelled unilaterally. The Senior Divisional Manager who filed the sworn affidavit in support of the contention of the opposite party, has no personal knowledge about the circumstance under which the said cancellation letter was sent to the complainant. Opposite party is the public institution. When they are relying on condition No.5 of Ex.B7 to cancel the policy, issued in favour of the complainant, burden heavily lies on them to substantiate that they have returned the policy premium amount to the complainant, after deducting the pro-rata premium till 07.09.2012. But there is no wisper in the evidence of opposite party or in the documents filed on behalf of opposite party which are marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 about the return of the premium amount to the complainant, after deducting pro-rata amount till the date of cancellation from the date of its commencement. As already discussed above the person who is having knowledge about the same not appeared before the Court not deposed anything. Hence it has to be presumed that opposite party not complied the condition No.5 of Ex.B7 in toto. When the premium paid by the complainant not returned after deducting pro-rata amount from the date of commencement of policy till the date of cancellation i.e., 07.09.2012, it is deemed cancellation letter issued by opposite party under Ex.B1 is not valid under eye of law.
8. It is admitted fact the cancellation letter alleged to have been sent by the opposite party under Ex.B1 is unilateral decision taken by the opposite party to cancel the policy issued by them under Ex.A1 in favour of the complainant. Hence it will come into force only from the date of intimation of the said cancellation to the complainant. In order to substantiate the contention of the opposite party they are relaying on the documentary evidence of Ex.B2 which is returned postal cover addressed to the complainant to his last known address. A perusal of this cover reveals the postman did not make any endorsement by mentioning the reasons why it was not delivered and returned to the sender. This postal cover is not intact. Acknowledgement is not signed by any one. No document is available in the said returned postal cover. Ex.B1 is the office copy of the cancellation letter. It is not known how it has to be presumed, the original of Ex.B1 alone was sent to the complainant under Ex.B2 cover. If the original if Ex.B1 was sent to the complainant under Ex.B2 it is for the opposite party to explain what happened to the documents which was kept under Ex.B2. It is for the opposite party to explain when Ex.B2 was tempered and which was the document that was sent to the opposite party under Ex.B2. Mere production of torn postal cover, addressed to the last known address of the complainant which was alleged to have been returned the postal authorities without any endorsement, cannot be construed as due service on the complainant, simply because it contained the last known address of the complainant. The Manager of the Madanapalle Branch is proper person to speak about the circumstances under which the policy was cancelled and which was the document that was sent to the complainant under Ex.B2 and when Ex.B2 was tempered etc. The counsel for the opposite party represented the Senior Divisional Manager of the opposite party Company is a competent to sue or to be sued. Hence he filed vakalath and written version and sworn affidavit on behalf of Senior Divisional Manger. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is true and correct, nothing prevented the opposite party to file sworn affidavit of the person who had direct knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the case which led to issue cancellation proceedings in the present case, sending of the intimation to the complainant under Ex.B2, the document which was sent under Ex.B2 and its tampering (when and how it happened) etc. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is not tenable to prove the defence of the opposite party either to cancel the valid policy issued by them in favour of the complainant under Ex.A1 or to establish such cancellation was properly intimated to the complainant. The opposite party miserably failed to substantiate its defence that they cancelled the policy issued by them due to bad claims and they have intimated such cancellation proceedings to the complainant either directly or according to the accepted procedure. Hence we hold both points 1 and 2 against the opposite party and in favour of the complainant.
10. POINT No.iii:-Burden heavily lie on the complainant to establish the accident occurred on 24.12.2012 at 11.00 A.M. near Kottam Engineering College, he had given complaint to the police with regard to the said incident, the damage caused to the car in the said accident and the amount required to get repair the said damage car etc. Apart from filing his sworn affidavit, marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 he examined independent surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle in the Bombay Auto Guarage, Kurnool and who estimated the loss caused to the insured vehicle as PW1 and marked office copy of his report as Ex.X1. In order to establish the incident occurred on 24.12.2012 and about intimation to police about the said accident he produced damage certificate issued by the Station House Officer, Ulindakonda P.S. which is marked as Ex.A3. This certificate was issued by the police on 24.12.2012 itself. The independent surveyor who has been examined as PW1 stated on oath that he received instructions from the New India Assurance Company Limited, Madanapalle Branch on 30.12.2012 with a request to attend survey on the vehicle bearing No.AP28 CC 0657 which was stationed at Bombay Auto Guarage, Kurnool. Accordingly he proceeded their on 31.12.2012 and inspected the damaged accident vehicle thereon. He assessed the loss for Rs.1,58,250/- which is arrived after applying deprecation as applicable under the policy. The Bombay Auto Guarage Authority submitted estimation for Rs.3,12,119/- by mentioning the spare parts that are required to be replaced, service and labour charges, denting and painting etc. After applying the deprecation that is required to various parts he submitted survey report to the opposite party by recommending for Rs.1,58,250/-. During the course of the cross examination by the counsel for opposite party he stated he mentioned in his report that one K.Ramesh another independent Surveyor visited the accident place and did spot surveyor. He further stated, he clearly mentioned in his report with regard to details of the allotment of the case to him by the New India Assurance Company Limited, Madanapalle. He further stated in his cross examination he submitted original survey report to the New India Assurance Company Limited, Madanapalle on 14.04.2013. When the counsel for opposite party suggested to the independent surveyor that the survey conducted by him over the vehicle bearing No.AP28 CC 0657 is not correct and that he assessed the loss by exaggerating the amount, he denied the same. The counsel for the opposite party not even suggested to this witness that opposite party not entrusted the survey of damage vehicle bearing No.AP28 CC 0657 to the witness and he inspected the vehicle of his own occurred etc. Hence it is clear the opposite party has information about the accident prior 30.12.2012 itself and they have entrusted the work of visiting damage vehicle and assessing its loss, to PW1 on 30.12.2012 itself. This fact is further strengthened by suggestion of counsel for opposite party, that he assessed loss by exaggerating the amount and he did not inform the date of inspection to the opposite party prior to inspecting etc., which was denied by PW1. Except denying the entire liability, on the ground they have cancelled the policy with effect from 14.09.2012 onwards, the opposite party is not disputing seriously with regard to quantum of the amount i.e., required, to get repair the damage vehicle and make it fit for road worthy. Though the complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.3,12,119/- the amount estimated by the Bombay Auto Guarage people, as per policy the IDV of the vehicle assessed by him itself was Rs.2,88,235/-. Hence the liability of the opposite party cannot be more than the I.D.V., of the vehicle mentioned under Ex.A1 and Ex.B3. The independent surveyor who has been examined as PW1 on behalf of complainant himself clearly stated he had gone through the estimation of the Bombay Auto Gurage, Authority, and estimated after deducting applicable deductions as per policy and submitted the report by recommending for Rs.1,58,250/-. The said figure is not challenged either by the complainant or by the opposite party. Hence we feel it is proper and reasonable to direct the opposite party to pay the amount which is recommended their own independent surveyor, after inspecting the damage vehicle and after taking into consideration the estimation submitted by the Bombay Auto Guarage, Authority and after applying deprecation i.e., required to the various parts which is at Rs.1,58,250/-. The plea of the opposite party that claim forms not submitted by the complainant is not tenable in view of the defence taken by them in their written version, sworn affidavit, written and oral arguments submitted on their behalf. As the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant though the policy was in force on the date of accident, we feel it is proper to award interest at 9% per annum on Rs.1,58,250/- from 25.01.2013 till the date of payment or realization whichever is earlier. Because of the false pleas taken by the opposite party and not settling the amount till now, the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and hence he is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.20, 000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this CC.
11. In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed, and the opposite party is directed to pay:
1. A sum of Rs.1,58,250/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date i.e., 25.01.2013 till the date of payment or realization whichever is earlier.
2. A sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation for the sufferance of mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this CC.
We direct opposite party to pay the amounts as directed above within one month from today failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order and realize the same by proceeding against opposite party according to law .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20th day of February, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Policy issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Registration Certificate of the Vehicle bearing No.AP28 CC 0657.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Damage Certificate issued by S.H.O., Ulindakonda P.S.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Driving License.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Invoice given by Bombay Auto Guarage, Kurnool.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Estimation issued by Bombay Auto Guarage, Kurnool.
Ex.X1 Office copy of Motor survey Report (Final) dated 14.04.2013.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Office copy of the Letter dated 07.09.2012 addressed to the complainant.
Ex.B2 Returned Postal Cover addressed to the complainant with Acknowledgement.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.61270231110100003125.
Ex.B4 Claim Intimation Letter dated 17.01.2012 relating to 1st accident.
Ex.B5 Claim Intimation Letter relating to 2nd accident.
Ex.B6 Loss/Damage Intimation Letter dated 30.04.2012 relating to 3rd accident.
Ex.B7 Private Car Package Policy terms and conditions.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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 :
