Before the District Forum:Kurnool

Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

And

Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member

Thursday the 23^rd day of December, 2004

C.D.No.44/2003

Smt C.Maheswari,

W/o. Late C. Maddilety

R/o Kasipuram Sunkesula (V),

Owk (M),Kurnool Dist.                                 . . . Complainant represented by his counsel

                                                                              Sri C.Ramana Reddy.

      -Vs-

The Branch Manager,

The National Insurance Co., Ltd, Kurnool.    . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel

                                                                               Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu

O R D E R

(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)

1.         This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.40,000/- with interest towards damages caused  to the vehicle in the accident and any other relief or relifs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.

2.         The case of the complainant is that her husband C. Maddilety was the owner of Tractor -Trailer bearing No.AP 21-U07519 and 7520.  The said vehicle was insured with opposite parties and covers the risk of own damage of the vehicle also.  The said policy was inforce on 31.3.2001 while the said C.Maddilety was proceeding in his own vehicle with load of Napa slaps from Kasipuram, Sunkesla to Parlapadu Village of Cuddapah District, met with accident at about 12.30 A.M of 31.3.2001/1.4.2001 near Chinna Kopperla in Mylavaram Mandal, in Cuddapah District.  In the said accident C. Maddilety traveling as owner of the goods died on the spot and the vehicle was badly damaged.  The driver of the said vehicle at the time of the accident was C.Ramudu son of Maddilety. Immediately, after the accident, intimation was sent to opposite parties, who inturn deputed a surveyor to inspect the said accident vehicle.  All necessary documents were submitted to opposite parties for claiming damages of Rs.40,000/- of the said vehicle.  Inspite of several approaches and demands the opposite parties did not settle the claim of the complainant and orally informed that the complainant is not entitled to the insured amount, as the said vehicle was used in contravention of terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence, constrained the complainant to seek redressal in the Forum against the opposite parties for not settling her claim, as amounts to deficiency of service.

3.         The complainant in support of her claim filed the following documents Viz (1) Original insurance policy bearing No. 89857 of the complainant’s husband vehicle (cover note), besides to her sworn affidavit in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above document is marked as Ex A.1 for its appreciation in this case.

4.         In pursuance to the notice as to this case of complainant the opposite parties appeared through standing counsel and contested the case by filing denial written version questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case either in law or on facts.

5.         The written version of opposite parties admits the deceased late C. Maddilety as the owner of the tractor-trailer bearing No. AP -21-U-7519& 7520 and same was insured with opposite parties for one year, commencing from 17.8.2000 to 16.8.2001 under comprehensive policy and the said policy was in force on the date of alleged accident on midnight of 31.3.2001/1.4.2001 near Chinna Kopperla village in Mylavaram (M) of Cuddapah District, which resulted in the death of C.Maddilety and intimation to opposite parties was given by deceased son C.Ramudu.  Thereafter, the opposite parties deputed a surveyor to estimate the damages and the final surveyor estimated damages to Rs.40,000/-.   The claim form was submitted by complainant claming damages with some documents but did not furnish DL of the driver who was on the wheels at the time of the accident.  As the drivers name in claim form is as Maddileti and in FIR it is as Ramudu and in the remand report the accused is mentioned as T.Maddilety @ Ramudu S/o Pedda Maddileti and also the driver is not possessing valid effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and his licence was expired.  As there are contradictions regarding the drivers name the opposite party informed son of deceased Chikati Ramudu to produce RC& DL of the driver, but there was no response.  Thereafter, the opposite parties has written remainder letters dt 11.7.2001, 1.10.2001, 7.11.2001 and 27.12.2001 requesting the complainant to furnish RC & DL of the driver to settle the claim.  As there was no response from the claimants the opposite parties closed the file as “No claim”.  It lastly submits that the complainant has to prove her entitleness to receive the insured amount, as the complainant/wife of deceased C. Maddilety is aged 27 years and C. Ramudu  son of C. Maddilety is aged 29 years who is the alleged driver of the said vehicle.

6.         The complainant failed to produce RC & DL of the driver who was on the wheels at the time accident, the opposite parties could not settle the claim of the complainant and thereby there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties & seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.3,000/-.

7.         The opposite parties in support of their case filed the following documents Viz (1) policy certificate bearing No. 03332 issued by opposite party to the deceased C. Maddilety (2) office copy of letter dt 27.12.2001 addressed by the opposite party to Chikati Maddileti (3) office copy of letter dt  7.12.2001 addressed by opposite parity to Chikat  Maddilety (4) office copy of letter dt 1.10.2001 addressed by opposite party to Chikati  Maddilety (5) Office copy of letter dt 11.7.2001 addressed by opposite party to the Chikati  Maddilety. (6) private & confidential Motor Survey Report (final) of R. Srinivasul dt 28.6.2001 (7) two quotation bills dt 20.4.2001 & 20.4.2001 (8) claim form submitted by C. Ramudu to opposite party (9) spot survey report of K.C. Laxmaiah dt 3.5.2001 (10) letter dt 4.4.2001 addressed by C. Ramdudu to opposite party (11) Xerox copy of FIR No.6 dt 1.4.2001 of Talamauchali police station (12) Xerox copy of Remand report dt 17.4.2001 (13) xerox copy from P.P.C No.370/A2/2000 of the vehicle of C.Maddilety, besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his written version avernments ad defence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.13 for its appreciation in this case.

8.         Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties?:-

9.         It is a categorical case of the complainant that she is the wife of

C. Maddilety who is the owner of tractor-trailer bearing No.s AP 21-U-7519 & 7520.  The said vehicle was insured with opposite parties and the said policy was inforce on mid-night of 31.3.2001/1.4.2001, when the said vehicle met with accident and resulted in death of C.Maddilety, but the opposite parties did not pay the insured amount to her inspite of submitting all necessary documents.  But as against to it, the opposite party in their written version averments alleges that the complainant did not furnish all necessary documents to settle her claim for insurance amount and further stated that as there were contradictions as to the driver on wheels at the time of the accident, the opposite parties requested the complainant to furnish original DL of the driver on wheels and RC book of the said vehicle but the complainant failed to furnish the above required documents, therefore, the opposite parties could not settle her claim.  In support of the supra stated contentions of the opposite parties and as in the Ex B.2, B.3, B.4 and B.5 as was a request there in, requesting  C.Maddileti to submit original R.C Book of the accident vehicle and driving licence for their verification and further it is stated that processing of the above mentioned claim is held up for want of RC & DL, subsequent to the said letters in Ex B.2, B.3, B.4 & B.5, the said statement of the complainant on this aspect that DL particulars are submitted to opposite party, but no such particulars are mention in claim form in Ex B.8, hence, the said statement of complainant not only remains highly inconsistence but also thereby un-trust worthy and as consisting of any bonafides of the complainant in that regard.  Therefore, what follows is that the complainant did not furnish the RC Book & DL of the driver on wheels at the time of the accident along with claim form or even thereafter, on request of opposite party, hence, there appears every bonafides of the opposite party in their hesitation that claim could not be settled for want of RC book & DL and their remains no deficiency of service on the side of opposite parties in that regard.

10.       The Ex A.1 cover note of insurance policy, Ex B.1 is the policy certificate bearing No.0332 issued by opposite party, Ex B.2, B.3, B.4 and B.5 are the letter dt , 27.12.2001,7.12.2001, 1.10.2001 and 11.7.2001 addressed by opposite parties to Chikati Maddilety, requesting to furnish original RC Book and driving licence, so that claim can be settled without much delay, but there was no response to the above said letters and the above exhibits are not denied by the complainant’s side hence, they cannot be discarded.  The Ex B.7 are two quotations dt 20.4.2001 submitted along with claim form in Ex B.8 for settling the claim.  The  Ex B.9 is spot survey report of K.C Laxmaiah dt 3.5.2001, who inspected the accident vehicle,  the Ex B.10 is letter of C. Ramudu to opposite parties stating that accident was occurred on 1.4.2001 and on intimation also spot survey is not conducted and requests to depute a surveyor to conduct survey at the accident spot.  The Ex B.11 is the FIR of Talamanchali police station.  The Ex B.12 is the remand report dt 17.4.2001 & Ex B.13 is the P.P.C copy form No. 376/A2/2000 of C .Maddilety’s vehicle.  The facts borne in the above record is not denied by the complainant’s side.  Hence, from them it remains clear that the complainant did not furnish RC Book and DL of the driver as sought by the opposite party to settle the claim as early as possible.  Hence there remains no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party.

11.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open Court this the 23 rd day of December, 2004.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

                   Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

          MEMBER                                                                        MEMBER