BEFORE 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
Thursday the 22nd day of January, 2015
C.C.No.64/2012
Between:
B.Ramakrishna Reddy,
S/o Ramalinga Reddy,
Hindu, aged about 44 Years,
R/o H.No.87/646-A, Plot No.102,
Gafoor Nagar,
Kurnool-518 003. …Complainant
-Vs-
- The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
M.R.B. Trade Center Shop No.13,
1st Floor, Bangarupeta, Kurnool-518 004.
- The Claim Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Reliance Center-19, Walchand Marg,
Ballard Easte Mumbai-400 001. .…OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.D.Siva Shankar Reddy, advocate for complainant and Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 Called absent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, President)
C.C. No.64/2012
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
(a)To direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay total claim as per policy amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.
(b)To pay with interest at 24% per annum from the date of accident.
(c)To pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and suffering.
(d)To pay Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of complaint.
And
(e)To grant other reliefs as the Honourable Forum deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the complainant in brief run as follows:- The complainant is owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 Q 9246. Opposite party No.1 is carrying business in Kurnool and opposite party No.2 issued policy bearing No.1808702311000217 after insuring the vehicle of the complainant.
On 21-08-2010 at about 11.00 A.M. when the driver of the complainant by name V.Venkata Ramudu drove the Maruti 800 Car bearing No.AP21 Q 9246 from Nandyal to Kurnool along with his mother, when he reached near G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College one dog came across the road, when the driver suddenly applied breaks to avoid hit of dog, he lost control applied sudden breaks and car turned turtle by the side of the road. As a result the said car was damaged totally. On the same day the complainant gave report to S.H.O., Taluk Police Station, Kurnool and obtained the Certificate to that effect.
The complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1 and submitted all relevant documents to him. He applied claim application to opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1, under claim No.2101198246. The driver was having valid and effective driving license. The policy issued by opposite party No.2 was in force. The vehicle bearing No.AP21 Q 9246 was totally damaged in the said accident. Instead of paying the amount opposite parties 1 and 2 sent letter on 20-06-2011 by stating damages found on the vehicle or not corroborating with cause of accident as narrated in the claim and further stated that they appear to be very old. They did not pay the amount and they were postponing on same pretest or other. Hence the complainant got issued a notice through his counsel to opposite parties 1 and 2 on 13-04-2012. Notice addressed to opposite party No.1 was returned with endorsement as left without intimation and served on opposite party No.2. Inspite of the notices the opposite parties failed to pay the amount to the complainant towards settlement of claim. Hence he approached this Forum and filed the complaint with a request to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2.
- To pay the total claim as per policy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of accident.
- To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and suffering and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
3. On issue of notices, the notices sent to opposite party No.2 were returned. Opposite party No.1 engaged counsel and filed written version the contents of which in brief run as follows. He admitted with regard to insuring of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 Q 9246 with him and receiving an amount of Rs.6,240/- towards premium, issuing of the policy by opposite party No.2 under policy bearing No.1808702311000217. The said policy was commencing from 19-06-2010 to 18-06-2011 Midnight. He says for want of knowledge he is not admitteing that the said vehicle met with an accident on 21-08-2010 at 11.00 hours near G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College on Kurnool to Nandyal Road and accident occurred when driver applied breaks to avoid collusion with a dog, which came across the road etc. He says informing the same to the opposite party No.1 immediately after the accident is not correct. He further says that lodging of the complainant by the complaint before S.H.O., Taluk Police Station, Kurnool and obtaining of the certificate from him with regard to said accident is not correct.
The complainant suppressed the material facts and filed the case with false details for getting wrongful gain from this respondent and in collusion with the police. The complainant’s vehicle might have damaged by way of any other method much prior to date of alleged accident i.e., 21-08-2010 but not as per the narration as mentioned in the complainant. The complainant who is working in Police Department colluded with the concerned officials and created the certificate in order to get wrongful gain from the respondent. Concerned police not registered the crime with regard to the said accident and not issued any F.I.R., nor maintained C.D. entry. The complainant did not inform to the opposite party immediately after the accident and damage alleged to have been taken place to the vehicle of the complainant. After receipt of the information from the complainant on the next day this opposite party registered the claim and appointed an Independent Insurance Surveyor namely E.Mukund to assess the damages caused to alleged vehicle. The said surveyor verified the said vehicle and assessed net loss of Rs.1,40,000/- and he mentioned in his report “ it is found that the damages caused to the said vehicle are too old and was not at all caused as on 21-08-2010”. If the complainant gave any information immediately after the accident, this opposite party might have got an opportunity to visit accident vehicle on the spot, and to assess the damages alleged to have been taken place to the insured vehicle. As the damages occurred to the accident vehicle were prior to alleged accident the opposite parties could not settle the claim. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence he prays to dismiss the CC with exemplary costs.
Opposite party No.2 called absent and set exparte.
4. When the matter was posted for examination of the witness, the complainant filed sworn affidavit in support of his contention and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. The opposite party No.1submitted sworn affidavit of Seshabhattar Raghu, working as Senior Executive Legal for T.P.Claims, M/S Bajaj Allianz G.I.C. Limited, Hyderabad in support of his contention and marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. They also examined one E.Mukund who the Independent Surveyor to speak about the survey conducted and loss assessed by him on the accident vehicle. Ex.X1 is marked though RW1.
5. Both parties submitted written arguments and oral arguments in support of their respective contentions.
The contention of the counsel for the complainant is that though he informed to the opposite parties when his car met with an accident on 21-08-2010, the opposite parties failed to settle the claim on some pretext or other. They had taken a false plea that the damage caused to the vehicle was not in that accident and that it was old one. The contention of opposite parties is not correct. All the damages were occurred on the date of the accident only. Hence he prays to set aside the objection taken by the complainant and to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the amounts to the complainant as claimed in the complaint.
The learned counsel for the opposite party no submitted in his written and oral arguments, no such accident had taken place on 21-08-2010 at 11.00 hours near G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Kurnool as narrated by the complainant. If really any such accident had taken place the inmates of the vehicle ought to have sustained same-injuries. It appears like miracle though the vehicle sustained major damage, no injuries occurred to the driver and mother of the complainant. The independent surveyor appointed by the opposite party and who inspected the damaged vehicle submitted report under Ex.X1 by stating the damage caused to the vehicle was not due to the said accident and they were old damages, that were in existing. Hence he prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in settling the claim of the complaint?
- If so? To what relief the complainant is entitled?
7. POINT No.i:- The ownership of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 Q 9246, insuring of the same with opposite parties 1 and 2, issuing of the policy under policy bearing No.1808702311000217 by opposite party No.2 and its validity from 19-06-2010 to 18-06-2011 are not in dispute. Hence it is admitted fact the policy issued by opposite party No.2 under Ex.A2 was in force on the date of the accident. In order to establish the accident had taken place on 21-08-2010 at 11.00 hours near G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Kurnool, the complainant produced the certificate issued by S.H.O., Taluk Police Station, Kurnool which is marked as Ex.A1 apart from filing his sworn affidavit. Xerox copy of the letter issued by opposite party No.2 is marked as Ex.A3. Registration Certificate of the vehicle, Office copy of Legal Notice, Postal Receipts, Postal Acknowledgement and Un-served Postal Cover of opposite party No.1 or marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 respectively. The main ground of the opposite parties in not considering the claim of the complainant is observations of the independent surveyor, the damage to the vehicle got heavy rusty and it was not informed to the opposite party No.1 immediately. As per the Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 the matter was assigned to independent surveyor to assess the damages on 22-08-2010 and he inspected the damaged vehicle on 23-08-2010 itself. Hence the contention of the opposite parties that it was not informed to them immediately after the accident is not sustainable. As for as main ground of the repudiation with regard to the damages occurred on the vehicle are not due to the cause of accident that occurred on 21-08-2010 at 11.00 A.M., and that they were in existence prior to the issue of policy under Ex.A2. It is clearly mentioned under Ex.A2. “It is hereby declared and agreed that all pre-existing damages to the vehicle having occurred prior to the commencement of cover are excluded from the scope of the policy”. By the said contention it is clear both parties were conscious about the pre-existing damages and their claim is concern. But it is not mentioned any where under Ex.A2 with regard to the damages that were in existence over the vehicle bearing No.AP21 Q 9246 prior to commencement of the policy covered under Ex.A2. When Ex.A2 is silent about the damages alleged to have been in existence prior to the accident, it is deemed that the damages which were observed and noted by the surveyor had taken place in the said accident only, but not prior to the accident as contended or alleged by the opposite parties. Hence the objections taken by the opposite parties that the damages occurred over the accident vehicle were not caused on the date of accident i.e., on 21-08-2010 and that they were pre-existing etc are not tenable and are over ruled. Hence non settling the claim of the complainant, by the opposite parties, amounts to deficiency of service and they are liable to compensate the same to the complainant. Thus we hold this point in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2.
8. Point No.ii:- The complainant is requesting in the complaint to grant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of damages but the failed to produce any material before this Forum to prove the quantum of the damages are concern. Hence we are forced to rely on the survey report of the surveyor who inspected the accident vehicle on the request of the opposite parties, and submitted the report to the opposite parties, which is marked as Ex.B1/Ex.X1. Under Ex.B1 he assess part cost including taxes at Rs.1,45,710/-, depreciation amount at Rs.17,600/- and finally costs of the damage at Rs.1,28,110/-. These figures which are mentioned in the report i.e., under Ex.B1 are not disputed either by the complainant or by the opposite parties. Hence we hold the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,110/- towards costs of damage occurred to the vehicle bearing No.AP21 Q 9246 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with which the complainant suffered due to the inaction of the opposite parties and a sum of Rs.1,890/- towards costs of the this CC.
9. In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed, and we direct the opposite parties 1 and 2, are jointly and severally liable to pay
1. A sum of Rs.1,28,110/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim till the realization.
2. A sum of Rs.10,000/- towards, by way of compensation for the sufferance of mental agony and Rs.1,890/- towards costs of this CC.
We direct the both opposite parties 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 both opposite parties according to law .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 22nd day of January, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : RW1
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Certificate issued by S.H.O., Taluk Police Station, Kurnool dated 22-08-2010.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.1808702311000217.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Repudiation Letter issued by opposite party No.2
dated 20-06-2011.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Registration Certificate.
Ex.A5 Office copy of Legal Notice date d 13-04-2012.
Ex.A6 Postal Receipts (2).
Ex.A7 Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.A8 Un-served Postal Cover of opposite party No.1.
Ex.X1 Survey Report.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Survey Report along with terms and conditions policy.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 20-06-2011.
RW1 Deposition of Sri.E.Mukund, dated 26-11-2014.
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 :
