BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President And Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member And Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member Monday the 5th day of November, 2012 C.C.No.18/2012 Between: Devarapalli Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o D.Veera Swamy, Reddy, R/o D.No.45-24A-47/2 Upstairs, Venkataramana Colony, Kurnool – 518 003. …Complainant -Vs- 1. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No.7 to 12, Alankar Plaza, Kurnool – 518 001. 2. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Room No.9, Hari Krupa Towers, D.No.13-191-192, R.F. Road, Anantapur – 517 5001. 3. The Regional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 570, Naigaum Cross Road, Next to Rayal Industrial Estate, Wadala (W), Mumbai – 400 031. ...Opposite ParTies This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Maha Vishnu, Advocate for complainant and Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite parties 2 and 3 called absent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following. ORDER (As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member) C.C. No.18/2012 1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:- (a) To direct the opposite parties to pay the insurance claim in respect of the Motor Car of the Complainant a sum of Rs.4,15,026/- (i.e., Rs.3,51,726/- being the cost of spare parts and Rs.63,300/- the labour charges), as estimated by Crafts Mens Motors); (b) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony and suffered; And (c) To pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the complaint; (d) To pass such other order or orders that the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP21 AA 6678 which was insured with opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1 at Kurnool. The policy was issued by opposite party No.3 under the private car policy No.1810792311001821 for the period commencing from 03-06-2009 to 02-06-2010. On 18-01-2010 the said vehicle met with an accident and got damaged on N.H-7 near Venkataramana Colony turning, Kurnool District. The Complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1 and accordingly he was given claim reference No.2101058809 and a surveyor was appointed for assessing the loss occurred to the vehicle in the said accident. The said surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle. The said vehicle was got repaired at TATA Authorizing service center namely STAR Motors, Kurnool. The complainant spent a sum of Rs.94,685/- subsequent to the claim, the complainant personally requested opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 to settle his claim but the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 did not respond. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 21-04-2011 and 04-01-2012 to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2. In spite of the receipt of notices the opposites failed to settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant has under gone mental agony having already incurred Rs.99,685/- expenditure for repairs of his damaged vehicle. The act of opposite parties in evading to settle the claim of complainant is amounts to deficiency of service. Hence this complaint is filed. 3. Opposite parties 2 and 3 called absent. Opposite party No.1 failed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle, Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP21 AA 6678 and the same was insured with opposite parties for the insured declared value of Rs.4,47,165/- vide policy bearing No.181079231001821 for the period commencing form 03-06-2009 to 02-06-2010. The policy was in force on the date of alleged accident. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 18-01-2010 on NH 7 near Venkataramana colony turning, Kurnool District. Thereafter the complainant informed the same and submitted claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 on 05-03-2010. There was a delay of 45 days. The opposite parties appointed Independent surveyor to assess the loss of damages caused to the insured vehicle and the said surveyor submitted his final report on 26-03-2010. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant an 26-06-2010 and the same was communicated to the complainant, on the ground that the complainant did not inform the accident to opposite parties immediately after the accident and there was a delay in giving information and submitting the claim form and other relevant document. The delay was 45 days. The opposite party No.1 is not at all liable to pay any damages to the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 is filed. 5. Both sides filed written arguments. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? iii. To what relief? 7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 AA 6678. Ex.A1 is the copy of Registration Certificate which stands in the name of complainant. The complainant insured his vehicle with opposite parties under the policy Ex.A2= Ex.B1 for the insured declared value of Rs.4,47,165/- for the period commencing from 03-06-2009 to 02-06-2010 vide policy bearing No.1810792311001821 and the policy was in force on the date of the accident on 18-01-2010. Admittedly the complainant made a claim and the opposite parties appointed an independent surveyor to assess the loss of damages cause to the insured vehicle. The said surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the net loss at Rs.65,659 -34 ps. under Ex.B2. 8. It is the case of the complainant that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 18-01-2010. The complainant informed the same to opposite parties. The opposite parties appointed a surveyor and the said surveyor inspected the vehicle and filed his final report. The complainant spent Rs.94,685/- and got it repaired. The opposite parties neither settle the claim nor repudiate it. The complainant got issued legal notice to opposite party No.1 dated 21-04-2011 (Ex.A7) and another notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 dated 04-01-2012 (Ex.A6). Inspite of receipt of notices, the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not settle the claim of the complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 contended that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy, that the complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents on 05-03-2010, that there was a delay of 45 days, that the opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant under Ex.B3 dated 26-06-2010 and the same was communicated to the complainant. 9. Admittedly the alleged accident was took place on 18-01-2010 and the complainant submitted claim along with relevant documents to opposite parties 1 and 2, that the opposite party No.1 appointed an independent surveyor to inspect the damaged vehicle and the said surveyor inspected the vehicle at TATA authorized service center and filed his report Ex.B2. There is no dispute in respect of accident and the claim made by complainant. Opposite party No.1 appointed surveyor to inspect the insured vehicle. Merely there was some delay on the part of the complainant in submitting the claim the opposite parties cannot escape their liability. Ex.B3 is a repudiation letter filed by opposite party No.1 without any acknowledgement. The contention of opposite party No.1 that opposite parties repudiated the claim under Ex.B3 dated 26-06-2010 and the same was communicated to the complainant cannot be accepted. Though the complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 under Ex.A6 and Ex.A7, the opposite parties did not respond. 10. The report of the surveyor must be given due weight. The report of the surveyor is reliable and the assessment given by him under Ex.B2 can be accepted. The complainant is awarded to the said amount of Rs.65,659 – 34 Ps. As seen from Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 it is clear that the opposite parties did not settle the claim within a reasonable time, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 11. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.65,659 – 34 Ps. to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date filing of the complaint i.e., 16-01-2012 till the date of payment along with costs of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of the order. Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 5th day of November, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined For the complainant: Nill For the opposite parties : Nill List of exhibits marked for the complainant:- Ex.A1 Photo copy of Registration Certificate for the Vehicle bearing No.AP21 AA 6678. Ex.A2 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.1810792311001821. Ex.A3 Photo copy of Sales Invoice (Cash) for Rs.94,685/- dated 27-02-2010. Ex.A4 Photo copy of Claim Reference No.2101058809. Ex.A5 Postal Acknowledgement. Ex.A6 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 04-01-2012 along with postal Receipts (Nos.2). Ex.A7 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 21-04-2011. List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Ex.B1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.1810792311001821. Ex.B2 Photo copy of Survey Report dated 26-03-2010. Ex.B3 Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 26-06-2010. 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 : | 
