BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 14th day of December,2010
C.C.No 95/10
Between:
M.Ranga Rao, S/o M.Chinnaiah,
H.No.6-67, Ramachandrapuram village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District-518 002.
.…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
4th floor, Alankar Plaza,Park Road, Kurnool-518 001.
2. The General Manager,Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Reliance Center, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate,
MUMBAI-400 001.
.…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for complainant, and opposite party No.1 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri. P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 95/10
- This complaint is filed under section 11 & 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
- to pay Rs.6,82,257/- towards vehicle damages with interest
@24% from the date of accident to i.,e 29-08-2009 till the date of realization.
- to grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony
- to grant the cost of the complaint.
- to grant other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing No. AP 21 Y 4743. OP.No.1 issued policy bearing No.1808792334001818 infavour of the complainant and it was valid from 09-07-2009 to 08-07-2010. The insured vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 29-08-2009. The police registered a case in Cr.No.188/09 under section 337 IPC. The complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to OP.No.1. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and estimated the loss. The automotive manufactures private limited, Kurnool issued quotation for Rs.6,82,257/-. The complainant approached the OPs number of times but they have not settled the claim nor repudiated. The complainant suffered mentally and physically .Delay in settlement of claim amounts to deficiency of service . Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.1 remained ex-parte. OP.No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle of the complainant was insured for the value of Rs.4,00,000/- . The vehicle met with an accident on 29-08-2009 and a case was also registered in Cr.No.188/09 of Taluk police , Kurnool . OP appointed an independent surveyor to assess the actual loss caused to the insured vehicle. The surveyor submitted his report assessing the net loss of Rs.3,49,000/- . The complainant suppressed the material facts and filed the complaint to get wrongful gain .At the time of the accident the cleaner by name Ramesh who had no valid driving license was driving the vehicle. The accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the cleaner of the insured vehicle. The driver did not sustain injuries as the accident took place due to the rash negligent driving of the vehicle by its cleaner who had no valid driving license. The OPs are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B6 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Point No.1 & 2: Admittedly the vehicle bearing No. AP 21 Y 4743 of the complainant was insured with the OPs and the OPs issued Ex.B1 policy. It is also admitted that the insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 29-08-2009 and Taluk police, Kurnool registered a case in Cr.No.188/09 under section 337 IPC. It is the main contention of the OPs that at the time of the accident the cleaner of the vehicle who had no valid driving license was driving the vehicle and that the OPs are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The complainant to show that the at the time of the accident the driver drove the vehicle relied on Ex.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the copy of the FIR. Ex.A2 is the copy of the charge sheet. As seen from Ex.A1 and A2 it is very clear that K. Kistaiah was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Ex.A3 is the driving license of the Kistaiah who is an accused in C.C.92/09 on the file of Judicial Second class Magistrate, Kurnool. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the OPs that Kistaiah the driver of the vehicle did not sustain injuries in the accident and therefore it can be said that Kistaiah was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. There is documentary evidence to show that Kistaiah the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. There is no material to come to the conclusion that the cleaner of the vehicle Ramesh was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.
8. The complainant filed the complaint claiming an amount of Rs.6,82,257/- towards damages. As seen from Ex.B1 the copy of the insurance policy ,the maximum assured amount under the policy is only Rs.4,00,000/- under any circumstances the complainant is not entitled to more than the assured amount of Rs.4,00,000/- . It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the OPs that after the receiving the intimation, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss, that the surveyor after inspecting the vehicle filed his report Ex.B6. He assessed the net loss at Rs.3,49,000/- . No doubt the complaint filed Ex.A5 quotation issued by Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited, Kurnool where in it is mentioned that the estimated loss sustained by the complainant is at Rs.6,82,257/- . Both parties must give weight to the surveyors report. As already stated the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.3,49,000/-. The OPs did not pay the amount to the complainant as the investigator in his report Ex.B2 stated that P. Ramesh cleaner of the vehicle might be on the driving seat at the material time of the accident. As already stated the police registered the case and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle in C.C.92/09. The delay in not paying the amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
10 Point No3: In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OPs jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.3,49,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% p.a from the date of the complaint i.,e 08-04-2010 till the date of realization along with costs of Rs.500/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 14th day of December, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of FIR in Cr.NO.188/2009 of Kurnool Taluk P.S. dt.30-08-2009.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of charge sheet in C.C.NO.92/2009.
Ex.A3. Photo copy of driving license of R.Kistaiah
Ex.A4. Letter dt. 26-03-2010 of Automotive MFRS.Pvt.Ltd, Kurnool.
Ex.A5. Quotation of Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd, Kurnool.
Ex.A6. Reliance General Insurance Policy Vehicle No.AP21 Y 4763, Kurnool.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Photo copy of Reliance General Insurance policy No.1808792334001818 of Vehicle NO.AP21-Y-4743
Ex.B2. Investigation report dt.14-09-2009.
Ex.B3. Two Photos Vehicle NO.AP21-Y-4743
Ex.B4. Two Photos
Ex.B5. Two photos
Ex.B6. Motor survey report dt.09-09-2009 of E.Mukund, Insurance surveyor and loss Assessor.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE 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 :
