This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                          05-05-15 in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana, advocate for complainant and                       Sri S. Satyanarayana, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-  The complainant filed this complaint                      u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite party to pay total damage amount of Rs.3,00,000/-; towards idling of the vehicle Rs.50,000/-; towards mental agony and legal expenses of Rs.25,000/- each.  

2.     In   brief the averments of the complaint are these:            

          The complainant purchased Mahindra Maxi (mini) Truck B 53 bearing No.AP07TD 2535 in the year 2012 by getting finance from the opposite party and insured by paying the premium of Rs.19,578/- under No.10003/31/14/731962 valid from period 04-03-14 to 03-03-15 covering 3^rd party and own damages.   The said vehicle driven by P. Dhanunjaya Rao on 01-05-14 when moving from Piduguralla to Rompicherla with a load of lime powder when came across a two wheeler vehicle to save him turned turtle by the roadside margin and met with an accident.  The complainant informed the same to the insurance company and the finance company.  The complainant asked the opposite party whether to file FIR or not.   The opposite parties officials advised not to register any FIR because there is no casualties due to the accident.  A surveyor was appointed by the opposite party who directed the complainant to shift the vehicle from the seen of offence and stationed the vehicle at authorized dealer i.e., Mahindra, Guntur.  The complainant by spending Rs.20,000/- hired crane and moved the vehicle from seen of accident to Guntur.   The garage persons estimated the value as total damage and required parking charges Rs.100/- per day.   The complainant due to lack of assurance from the opposite party about the thing shifted the damaged vehicle from authorized dealer to private garage who assessed the loss to a tune of Rs.1,59,750/-.  The insurance surveyor inspected the vehicle took photographs and telephoned and threatened the complainant to accept the claim for Rs.65,000/- failing which he would recommend for Rs.30,000/-.   The surveyor did not assess the vehicle as a total damage and committed deficiency of service.   The opposite party failed to appoint 2^nd surveyor inspite of several requests from the complainant.   The complainant made claim with the opposite party on 01-09-14.   The complainant due to inaction of the opposite party which is deficiency of service on their part, kept his vehicle idle and lost his daily income as a result unable to pay the EMIs.   The complainant is only the bread winner for his family and eeking livelihood from the said truck.   Hence the complaint.

3.    1^st opposite party filed version and the contents in brief are hereunder:

          The complainant purchased the vehicle with the funds of the opposite party organization in the year 2012 and insured the said vehicle with the opposite parties and also renewed, valid from 04-03-14 to 03-03-15 and covers the liability of the 3^rd party and vehicle damage.   The opposite parties after receiving the intimation from the complainant intimated him to keep the vehicle with the authorised garage i.e., Mahindra of Guntur.   But he did not comply and no information was given about the vehicle to the surveyor or opposite party, due to which surveyor inspected the vehicle on 06-05-14.   The complainant failed to give police report.   The complainant did not provide the driving license particulars, driver details.   The surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.72,000/- after deducting the depreciation including the labour and towing charges.  The claim form was submitted by some other person without furnishing the required information and material like DL, particulars of driver.   The complainant stated on 01-05-14 that a person by name Ramakrishna was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.   But later he changed the version and mentioned P. Dhanunjaya Rao as name of the driver.   The allegation made by the complainant that the surveyor threatened to take Rs.65,000/- or else he would recommend for Rs.35,000/- is utterly false and created. The complainant never asked for the appointment of 2^nd surveyor.   The claim was exaggerated by the actual figures.   The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy by handing over the vehicle to unlicensed person Ramakrishna and failed to furnish required documents.   The complaint is not maintainable since the complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hands.   So the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

4.  Both parties filed their respective affidavits.  The documents filed by the complainant were marked as Exs.A1 to A4 and the documents marked by opposite party were marked as Exs.B1 to B10.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.   POINTS 1&2:-     The opposite party despite the complainant’s failure to submit proper claim form and driver’s particulars, assessed the loss and credited an amount of Rs.70,888/- to the complainant’s loan account on               04-07-14.          The complainant in para 6 of his complaint stated as follows:

“The complainant made claim with the opposite party on                          01-09-14 and the same was neither settled nor repudiated”.

7.   The complainant did not so mention in para 6 of his affidavit.   The complainant did not produce any evidence to show that he submitted claim form on 01-09-14.   Complainant though aware of crediting Rs.70,888/- into his loan account did not question its sufficiency or otherwise for the reasons best known to him.   Hence this Forum cannot go into that aspect. 

8.      The complainant’s cost estimate, in absence of expert opinion/surveyor’s report in contradiction to the opposite party’s surveyor’s report, cannot substitute a bill and so cannot be accepted.   To allege deficiency of service he falsely mentioned that he submitted claim form on           01-09-14, without submitting claim form.

9.      In view of the above discussion, the Forum opines that the complainant did not establish the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and therefore the complainant is not entitled to any claim or compensation from the opposite party.  In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by junior stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 20^th day of May, 2015.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

          DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:   

PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.