C.C. No. 17 of 2009th May 2009 C.C. No. 17 of 2009nd notice with false allegations. The3 service on the part of the respondent is not settling the claim amounts to deficiency in service is all false and imagination of the complainant. The respondent always discharged his duty right from receiving of the intimation of the accident from the complainant. In fact the complainant was negligent in discharging her duties such as submission of relevant documents for settlement of her claim. The respondent also addressed a letter dt. 12-6-2008 to the complainant that her claim was settled for Rs. 66,770/- towards full and final settlement and to submit the discharge voucher duly signed by the complainant for issuance of the cheque in favour of the financier bank and in case of cheque to be issued in her favour, to obtain no objection letter from the Bank. Inspite of receipt of the said letter the complainant failed to submit the discharge voucher, as such there is deficiency of service on the part of the complainant. The respondent under compelled circumstances ‘closed the claim’ under due intimation to the complainant, the respondent appointed a surveyor by name G. Subba Rao, to inspect the accident vehicle and to submit the report. The said surveyor assessed the nature of damage and the liability of the respondent @ Rs. 75,000/- considering the applicable depreciation to iron and rubber parts. The respondent after submission of the bills by the complainant, calculated net amount payable as Rs. 66,770/-. The allegation of the complainant that she paid Rs. 3,91,552/- for getting the vehicle to road condition is her imagination which is not supported by documentary evidence, such as relevant bills issued by Harsha Toyota, Hyderabad, authorized service station. The expenditure towards the repairs estimated by the complainant is excessive without any proof and to get unlawful gain. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent so as to attract the provisions of C.P. Act. There are no merits in this complaint and the respondent requested this forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. C.C. No. 17 of 20094 i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? ii. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent? iii. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A8 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 to B6 were marked. Oral arguments were heard from both sides. 6. Point No. 1& 2. Ex. A1 is the Xerox copy of insurance policy. Ex. A2 is the Xerox copy of receipt issued by Harsha Toyota, Hyderabad, dt. 30-11-2007 for Rs. 3,91,552/- in favour of the complainant. Ex. A3 is the Xerox copy of demand draft for Rs. 2,50,000/-, dt. 14-11-2007 in favour of Harsha Automotive Pvt. Ltd.,. Ex. A4 is the Xerox copy of another demand draft for Rs. 50,000/- dt. 14-11-2007 in favour of Harsha Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Ex. A5 is the Xerox copy of legal notice dt. 10-9-2008. Ex. A6 is the Xerox copy of letter from the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., dt. 3-10-2008 addressed to the Advocate of the complainant. Ex. A7 is the Xerox copy of another legal notice dt. 20-7-2008 addressed to the respondent. Ex. A8 is the Xerox copy of letter settlement of claim dt. 12-6-2008 addressed to the complainant by respondent. Ex. B1 is the Xerox copy of motor final survey report, dt. 5-8-2007. Ex. B2 is the Xerox copy of Ex. A8. Ex. B3 is the Xerox copy of reminder – I, dt. 8-7-2008. Ex. B4 is the Xerox copy of letter dt. 8-8-2008 of the respondent addressed to the complainant. Ex. B5 is the Xerox copy of letter of the respondent addressed to the complainant dt. 28-8-2008. Ex. B6 is the Xerox copy of calculation sheet (containing – 4). 7. As could be seen from the documentary evidence on record there is no dispute with regards to accident of the vehicle in question and there is also no dispute with regard to repairs of the damaged vehicle of the complainant through authorized service station by name Harsha Toyota EX.A2 dt. 30-11-2007 which is C.C. No. 17 of 20095 issued for Rs. 3,91,552 mentioned as by cash. In fact the payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively by means of Demand Drafts by the complainant is not find place in the receipt. The complainant failed to convenience this forum on this aspect and there is no satisfactory explanation with regards to genuiness of the receipt Ex. A2 issued by the service station. In view of the unexplained situation by the complainant in respect of the expenditure towards the repairs, of her damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs. 3,91,552/- deserves no consideration, as such taking Ex. A3 and A4 demand drafts for Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively paid by the complainant to the service station towards the expenditure of her damaged vehicle needs to be considered . The estimation of surveyor as per Ex. B1 appears to be very low when compared to the actual insurance of expenditure by the complainant towards the repairs to her damages vehicle. 8. The respondent at any point of time has not succeeded in convincing this forum in support of his contention that the vehicle in question is meant for hire usage which is purely commercial in nature. In view of not adducing adequate evidence in support of this contention of the respondent it is not fair to consider the contention of the respondent. Similarly there is no evidence adduced by the respondent to show that the complainant is having dues to the Financier i.e. State bank of India, Proddatur Branch, as such the contention of the respondent that nonjoinder of the financier is bad for the complaint as the Financer alone is the complainant during the finance period and the complainant cannot he termed and defined as owner of the said vehicle. Again the respondent failed to adduce evidence in support of its contention taking in view of this aspect the complainant is advised to obtain no objection certificate from the S.B.I., Proddatur branch and produce before the respondent so that the respondent can safely deliver the amount to the complainant. C.C. No. 17 of 20096 9. Point No. 2 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakshs only) to the complainant without interest, costs and compensation, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The rest of the claim is dismissed. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 11 MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined. For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL Exhibits marked for Complainant : - Ex. A1 X/c of insurance policy. Ex. A2 X/c of receipt issued by Harsha Toyota, Hyderabad, dt. 30-11-2007 for Rs. 3,91,552/- in favour of the complainant. Ex. A3 X/c of demand draft for Rs. 2,50,000/-, dt. 14-11-2007 in favour of Harsha Automotive Pvt. Ltd.,. Ex. A4 X/c of another demand draft for Rs. 50,000/- dt. 14-11-2007 in favour of Harsha Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Ex. A5 X/c of legal notice dt. 10-9-2008. Ex. A6 X/c of letter from the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., dt. 3-10-2008 addressed to the Advocate of the complainant. Ex. A7 X/c of another legal notice dt. 20-7-2008 addressed to the respondent. Ex. A8 X/c of letter settlement of claim dt. 12-6-2008 addressed to the complainant by respondent. Exhibits marked for Respondents: - Ex. B1 X/c of motor final survey report, dt. 5-8-2007. Ex. B2 X/c of Ex. A8. Ex. B3 X/c of reminder – I, dt. 8-7-2008. Ex. B4 X/c of letter dt. 8-8-2008 of the respondent addressed to the complainant. Ex. B5 X/c of letter of the respondent addressed to the complainant dt. 28-8-08. Ex. B6 X/c of calculation sheet (containing – 4). MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Copy to :- 1) Sri M. Sarath Chandra Reddy, Advocate. 2) Sri D.V.S. Prasad, Advocate. 1) Copy was made ready on : 2) Copy was dispatched on : 3) Copy of delivered to parties : B.V.P. - - - C.C. No. 17 of 2009th May 2009 DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L., SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER Monday, 11 CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 17 / 2009 Bhumireddy Sarada, W/o Samba Siva Reddy, aged 48 years, Hindu, Vehicle owner, C/o Sudhakar Agencies, Vasthu Complex, Mydukur Road, Proddatur town and Mandal, Kadapa District. ….. Complainant. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, 22/444, B.S. complex, Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. ….. Respondent. This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 4-5-2009 in the presence of Sri M. Sarath Chandra Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri D.V.S. Prasad, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri S. Abdul Khader Basha, Member), 1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the owner of Tata Qualis bearing No. AP 04 V : 0189. The complainant had taken vehicle insurance policy from the respondent company bearing No. 050901/31/6/01/00000559 and the policy is in force from 21-9-2006 to 20-9-2007. The said vehicle was met with an accident on 18-6-2007 and the vehicle was also damaged. The complainant informed the respondent and as per instructions of the respondent the complainant handed over the damaged vehicle for repairs to the authorized service station “Harsha Toyota”, a t Hyderabad. The service station prepared and sent estimation for the repair of the vehicle even to the respondent. The service station repaired the vehicle and issued the bill in total for Rs. 3,91,552/-. The complainant paid the bill amount on 14-11-2007 by way of two demand drafts and cash. The complainant had filed the same to the respondent and submitted 2 papers to the respondent and copies of the receipts issued by Harsah Toyata. The complainant submitted the claim to the respondent. But surprisingly the complainant received a letter from the respondent on 12-6-2008 in that the respondent stated that the claim was approved for Rs. 66,700/- to full and final settlement and also sent a form to the complainant. The complainant immediately contacted the respondent and enquired with them. The respondent’s offer is not acceptable to the complainant and the complainant informed to the respondent the total expenditure of the vehicle. The respondent is not acted upon and that the complainant issued a legal notice to the respondent on 20-7-2008 and again on 10-9-2008. The respondent replied for the 2 complainant had done all the formalities as required by the respondent long back. The respondent carelessness and callous attitude clearly amounts to deficiency of service, negligent attitude and unfair trade practice. The act of the respondent is within the ambit of the provisions of C.P Act. The complainant had sustained a lot of monitory loss as well as mental agony. This complainant is filed before this forum requesting to direct the respondent to pay the bills amount of Rs. 3,91,552/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 14-11-2007, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony and costs to the complaint. 3. The respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations and stated that this complaint is not maintable before this forum as the vehicle bearing No. AP 04 V : 0189 is a commercial registration which is meant for hire usage purpose, as such the complainant for her grievance if any on this issue ought to have approached the Civil court of Law and not before this forum. The present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary of the vehicle i.e. S.B.I. Proddatur who alone is the complainant to claim and file this complaint during the finance period and the complainant cannot be termed and defined as owner of the vehicle and on this aspect also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The allegation of the complainant that there is deficiency of 1
......................B. Durga Kumari
......................Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao
......................Sri.S.A.Khader Basha | | 
