BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 20th day of December, 2005.
C.D.No.90/2005
S.Raghavendra,
S/o Subramanyam,
H.No.51-15-B-21-1,
Baba Brindavan Nagar,
Kurnool-518003. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,R.S.Road,
40-439, Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 19.12.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri.K.Omkar, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri.A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Member)
1. The CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.45,320/- towards loss sustained by the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No. RC AP21-T-3194 which was insured with opposite party under policy bearing No.051100/31/39194/2001. On 12-1-2002 the said vehicle met with accident near Manopad and the vehicle was badly damaged. The complainant, thereafter, submitted bills for a sum of Rs.62,620/- but the opposite parties settle the claim for Rs.17,300/- and paid to the financier and later the opposite party refused to pay the remaining amount colliding with the financier inspite of his letter dated 25-5-2003. Thereafter, the opposite party fails to pay the remaining amount inspite of several requests. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this complaint before this Forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of his case filed the following documents viz. (1) Personal notice of the complainant dated 25-5-2003 addressed to opposite party and (2) Postal acknowledgment and postal receipt dated 26-5-2003 as to the receipt of Ex.A1 by opposite party, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party and to the two third parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party denies the complaint averments as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits the complainant as the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21-T-3194 which was insured under policy bearing No.051100/31/021/39194/2001 for a period from 7-6-2001 to 6-6-2002. It also admits that the said lorry met with accident on 12-1-2002 and the complainant submitted a claim form with repair bills assessing the damages to Rs.62,620/- as per the contents of the claim form the said lorry was purchased under hire purchase agreement with Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., Kurnool. Immediately after the accident the opposite party deputed surveyor into the alleged accident to assess the loss. Basing on the final surveyor report and post inspection report the opposite party assess the loss and settled the claim for Rs.17,300/- and paid the said amount to the financier as full and final settlement, the financier and the complainant signed the disbursement voucher dated 22-7-2002 as full and final settlement..
6. As the said vehicle was under hire purchase agreement with Shri Ram City Union Finance Company and as per terms and conditions of the policy even though the claim was preferred by the insured of the vehicle, the opposite party paid the claim amount to the financier of the said vehicle as per IMT-10 endorsement. The complainant accepting the payment to the financier and having signed disbursement voucher on 22-7-2002 along with the financier in token his acceptance, the complainant now cannot claim for the reliefs mentioned in the complaint. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of his case the opposite party relied on following the documents viz.(1) Attested copy of policy along with terms and conditions (2) Motor B policy issued to K.P.Rahalad Rao and transferred to the complainant (3) Private and confidential report (Final) of J.S.V. Kameswara Rao dated 22-5-2002 (4) Post Repair inspection report dated 10-6-2002 of P.Narendra Kishore (5) Disbursement (Claims) voucher dated 22-7-2002 signed by the complainant and the financier, along with the Indian Motor Tariff (6) Letter dated 2-6-2003 of opposite party to the complainant (7) Acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A6 by the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of its written version and above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B7 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant and also relied on two third party affidavits of P.Narendra Kishore and J.S.V. Kameswara Rao and the third parties suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party:?
9. It is the case of the complainant that his Lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3194 insured with opposite party met with accident on 12.1.2002 near Manapadu and the complainant submitted claim form along with bills claiming a sum of Rs.62,620/-from opposite party towards damages to the said lorry. But to the dismay of the complainant the opposite party settled the claim for Rs.17,300/- and paid to the financier, now he claims for the balance amount of Rs.45,320/. But as against to it the written version of opposite party in para 4 alleges that after the accident it deputed a surveyor and after final survey report vide Ex B.3 and post repair inspection report vide Ex B.4, the opposite party assessed the loss and settled the claim to Rs.17,300/- towards full and final settlement, based on the said reports and the complainant accepted to the said settlement and signed in the Disbursement (claim) voucher dt 22.7.2002 vide Ex B.5 along with the financier i.e Shriram City Union Finance Limited. The opposite party further submits that the claim amount was paid to the financier as per the IMT- 10 endorsement, which says that when a vehicle is under hire purchase agreement between the owners on one part and insured on the other part and it is further understood that under this policy in respect of loss or damage to the vehicle such monies shall be paid to the owner as long as they are the owners of the vehicle. As per the terms and conditions of the policy only the opposite party paid the claim amount to the financier, the complainant having accepted the payment to the financier as full and final settlement and also having signed the disbursement voucher vide Ex B.5 along with financier in token of his acceptance, cannot now claim for remaining balance amount. The opposite party further submitted that they settled the claim of the complainant as per the assessment made by the independent surveyors. Hence, from the above it is remaining clear that there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party’s side.
10. The opposite party’s side in support of their case relied on the two third party affidavits of surveyor J.S Kameswar Rao and P. Narendra Kumar, the third party affidavit of J.S.V Kameswar Rao says that he has been called by Assistant Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and was instructed to conduct inspection survey and assessment to the complainant’s vehicle and after detail inspection and discussions with repairers and as well as insured he allowed necessary repairs charges and replacement of damaged spare parts. As the vehicle was 1995 model the labour charges and spare parts are subject to depreciation and other subjective conditions of the policy of Insurance and he assessed to Rs.19,500/-. The affidavit of P. Narendra Kumar says that he was called by opposite party to conduct Post Repair Inspection of the complainant’s vehicle and inspected the said vehicle, as per the parts allowed by final surveyor, it was found that three parts (1) Air cleaner inlet elbow (2) Co- driver seat and (3) Cabin Post front Ltd., were found repaired and these parts repairing charges were considered and submitted his report to opposite party depicting the salvage items. From the above affidavits it is clear that the assessment made by the opposite party is after thorough survey by surveyors only and not on its personal survey. Hence, the settlement by opposite party to the tune of Rs.17,300/- is based on final survey report and post repairs inspection report and the said reports are not disputed by the complainant. Hence, there appears every bonafides of the opposite party in his hesitation on the said grievance and there appears no deficiency of service on part of opposite party’s side.
11. To sum up, in the circumstances discussed above as there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictation to Stenographer, transcriber by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open court this the 20th day of December, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Notice copy, Dt.25-5-2003 of complainant to opposite party
Ex.A2 Postal Acknowledgement card and postal receipt, Dt.26-5-2003
(No.331)
Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Attested copy of policy along with terms and conditions
(No.AP21T-3194)
Ex.B2 Motor ‘B’ policy (Transfer and Duplicate V.No.AP21T-3194)
Ex.B3 Private & Confidential Motor Survey Report(Final) Dt.22-5-2002
Ex.B4 Repair Inspection Report, Dt.10-6-2002
Ex.B5 Disbursement (Claims) voucher, Dt.22-7-2002 along with Xerox
certificate (India Motor Tariff)
Ex.B6 Reply notice, Dt.2-6-2003 of opposite party to complainant
Ex.B7 Acknowledgement card of opposite party to complainant.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri K.Omkar, Advocate, Kurnool
- Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
