BEFORETHE DISTIRCT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 8th day of September, 2010. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com, L.L.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., L.L.B., Member C.C.No.17/2009 Between: Mandadapu Venkata Ramaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Age:60yrs, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Wyra (V&M), Khammam District. . Complainant. And The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Door No.40-1-21-3, M.G.Road, Bunder Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada. Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri G. Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP 20 P 6669 in the year 2007 and the same was insured with opposite party by paying premium amount of Rs.16,314/- vide policy No.1803172311689093 valid from 20.02.2008 to 19.02.2009. The said premium was collected by the agent of opposite party at Khammam. On 25-08-2008, the complainant along with his family members went to Vijayawada and while returning towards Khammam, when reached near Nagulvancha (v), Chinthakani (m), Khammam district, some bullocks were quarreling each other and hit the car due to which the car was damaged. Subsequently, the complainant shifted the car to the Garage by name Laxmi Ford, a unit of Subhalaxmi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada, for repair where the authorities attended the repairs of car and issued invoice vide No.CRIA80217500, dt.29.08.2008 for Rs.41,297/- and also contended that the complainant informed the same to the opposite party and also submitted the bill for payment but the opposite party paid Rs.19,577/- through cheque No.735031, dated 10.09.2008 of HDFC Bank, Mumbai. Further the complainant approached the opposite party to demand for the balance amount, the opposite party with malafide intention postponing the balance payment on one pretext or the other. Vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant constrained to file the complaint. 2. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1:- Photocopy of invoice issued by Subhalakshmi Motors Pvt. Ltd., dated 29-08-2008. Ex.A2:- Photocopy of At par cheque, for Rs.19,577/- issued by opposite party, dated 10.09.2008. Ex.3:- Photocopy of policy dated 20.02.2008. 3. On receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In the counter, the opposite party submitted the importance of company, rules and regulations of the policy, violation of the insurance contract by the parties to the contract of insurance, the contract becomes void and in such an event the insurance company is not liable to answer the claim of the other party and admitted the issuance of policy to the complainant, also contended that liability if any is subject to various policy terms, conditions, limitations, exclusions and the depreciation noted in the policy. Also submitted that the opposite party received the claim intimation from the complainant on 29-08-2008, they deputed a surveyor to assess the damage of the vehicle and other related documents, after due verification assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19,577/- after deducting the policy excess, depreciation and salvage, submitted the report, basing on the report the claim of the complainant was settled, as per survey report to the tune of Rs.19,577/- under cheque bearing No.735031, dated 10-09-2008 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. and sent the same to the complainant; Therefore the opposite party has not rendered any deficiency of service to the complainant in settling the claim and also the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as prayed. Also submitted that, the opposite party has no knowledge of purchasing the car and the same was insured with them by paying premium amount and issuance of policy, on 25-08-2008 the damage occurred to the car due to quarrel between some bullocks, shifted the car by the complaint to the garage of Vijayawada, where the garage authorities attended the repairs of the car and the issuance of invoice for an amount of Rs.41,297/-, even after receiving an amount of Rs.19,577/- from the opposite party, the complainant approached the opposite party, the opposite party did not choose to pay the balance amount are false and baseless and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits. Ex.B1:- Photocopy of the policy bearing No.1803172311689093, dated 20.02.2008. 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, written arguments filed. 6. To support their contention, the opposite parties submitted the following citations, 1) F.A.No.790 of 2007 against C.D.No.49 of 2005, ordered by APSRDC at Hyderabad, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Vs S.V.V.L.Satheesh Kumar. 2) II (2005)CPJ 10 (NC), between Vatorgard Chemicals Private Ltd., Vs National Insurance Company Limited. 3) II (2006) CPJ 339(NC), between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs B. Ramareddy. 7. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, the points that arose for consideration are, 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim? 2) To what relief? POINT No.1:- In this case, the complainant had purchased a Ford Fiesta Car bearing No. AP 20 P 6669 in the year 2007 and the same was insured with opposite party by paying premium amount of Rs.16,314/- vide policy No.1803172311689093 valid from 20.02.2008 to 19.02.2009. The said premium was collected by the agent of opposite party at Khammam, on 25-08-2008, the complainant went to Vijayawada and while returning towards Khammam, the car was damaged due to quarrel between some bullocks, the complainant shifted the car to the Garage, Vijayawada and the same was admitted by the opposite party in para No.2 of the written arguments. But in para No.9, 10 and 11 of their counter they denied entire claim and conntention of the complainant i.e. purchasing of car, taking the policy, happening of accident, shifting the car to garage for repairs and other things. In para No.3 of their written arguments, they admitted the issuance of cheque for an amount of Rs.19,577/- after deducting the policy excess, depreciation and salvage as per the surveyor report. After receiving the cheque for Rs.19,577/- the complainant approached for the balance amount, the opposite party failed to pay the same, the complainant approached Forum for redressal. To support their contention the opposite party filed written arguments along with judgments of the Honble National Commission. The judgments relied by the opposite parties are regarding the Fire Policy and also the facts in the said cases are different and decided on various grounds, which are not attracted the present case. From the papers on record, we observed that whether the complainant is entitled for the payment of balance amount. The case of the complainant is that after the accident he sifted the car to the garage who had given invoice receipt, for an amount of Rs.41,977/- and according to him he was entitled to the claim amount. As per the contention of the opposite parties, the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19,577/- and issued report. The opposite parties failed to file the survey report, which is crucial document on which they relied. Without filing surveyors report, the opposite parties cannot repudiate the claim and contention of the complainant. The Honble National Commission in New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Subash Kumar I (2010) CPJ 272 (NC) observed that, Insurance Assessment of Loss- Depreciation- Accident took place within few days of purchase of vehicle- 50% deduction on rubber parts unjustified Deducted amount added in total assessment made by surveyor. [para 6] And also we observed that in the invoice submitted by the complainant he spent Rs.21,588.50ps/- towards labour charges and Rs.15,146.51ps/- for spare parts. From the record since the accident has been taken place within 2 years from the date of purchase, the depreciation will be allowed up to 20% on spare parts. Therefore from the above we accept the claim of the complainant in part. To this after deducting 20% from spare parts i.e. 3029.00/-, thus the amount payable is Rs.38,268/-. For the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is partly allowed. POINT No.2:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.38,268/- (after deducting the amount of Rs.19,577/-, which was already paid through cheque bearing No.735031, dated 10.09.2008) with interest @9%p.a. from 10.09.2008 till the date of payment and also awarded Rs.2000/- towards costs of the litigation. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 8th day of September, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite party: None Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A1:- Photocopy of invoice issued by Subhalakshmi Motors Pvt. Ltd., dated 29-08-2008. Ex.A2:- Photocopy of At par cheque, for Rs.19,577/- issued by opposite party, dated 10.09.2008. Ex.A3:- Photocopy of policy dated 20.02.2008 Exhibits marked for opposite party: Ex.B1:- Photocopy of the policy bearing No.1803172311689093, dated 20.02.2008 PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
