3

was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the respondent. Thus the

complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the

part of the respondent?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A9 were marked and on behalf

of the respondent Ex. B1 to B5 were marked. No written arguments were filed by

both parties.

6. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant was a contractor working at

Mopalakunta, Rayachoty Mandal, Kadapa District. He had one Tata Hitachi

(Excavator) model Ex-100 bearing No. 1001-0007. It was insured with the

respondent under policy No. 432706/31/2007/1156 with validity period from

18-8-2006 to 17-8-2007. The policy was package policy for Zone – C

miscellaneous type of vehicles. The complainant filed Ex. A2 policy issued by the

respondent bearing policy No. 1156/07 to the engine No. and chasis No. as

10010007. He filed Ex. A1 a Xerox copy of sales invoice of the insured vehicle.

The complainant engaged one lorry bearing No. AP 26 C : 8168 to transport the

(Excavator) vehicle to the work spot. On 4-5-2007 during evening hours while the

alleged insured vehicle was transporting through the lorry, the lorry was sunk into

the mud on account of rain and the driver lost his control over the lorry, resulting

the Excavator vehicle fell down from the lorry and was badly damaged. The

Rayachoty urban police station registered a case as Cr. No. 78/2007 dt. 5-5-2007.

The Xerox copy of FIR was Ex. A3. After the accident the complainant informed

the same to the respondent, who deputed a surveyor by name B.A. Samad Khan to

4

conduct spot survey. He surveyed and filed the report mentioned the damaged

machine identification No. was 10012089. The respondent company deputed one

A.C. Rami Reddy, surveyor to conduct survey and assess the damage to the

damaged vehicle who filed a final survey report on 23-8-2007 mentioning Sl.No. of

the (Excavator) damaged was 10012089 whereas the Sl.No. of Excavator insured

was 10010007. The said surveyor mentioned that the Excavator insured was not

the excavator damaged. Ex. B2 was Xerox coy of final survey report dt. 23-8-2007.

Under Ex. B2 the surveyor assessed the damage as Rs. 14,497/-. The respondent

also filed a Xerox copy of policy with machine No. and chasis No. as 10010007. It

was Ex. B5. Ex. B5 and Ex. A2 were one and same. The complainant filed Ex. A4,

A5, A6, A7 and A8 Xerox copies of cash bills regarding repairs conducted to the

damaged vehicle. The respondent filed a Xerox copy of motor claim scrutiny sheet

under Ex. B3. Under Ex. B3 a net liability was only Rs. 12,600/-. After the

accident the complainant made a claim for Rs. 3,99,422 towards expenditure for

conducting repairs to the damaged Excavator vehicle. The respondent repudiated

the claim on the ground that the damaged machine identification was not tallied

with machine identification No. mentioned in the policy. The repudiation letter

was Ex. A9. The Xerox copy of the same was filed by the respondent under Ex. B4.

7. On perusal of Ex. A2 insurance policy of the insured vehicle the

machine identification No. was 10010007. But as per Ex. B1 Xerox copy of the

spot survey report conducted by the surveyor the machine identification No. was

1001-2089. So there was no insurance policy on the vehicle with machine No.

10012089 which was damaged in the accident on which a claim was preferred.

The policy was to another vehicle with different machine No. So the complainant

claimed the damage or compensation on the vehicle which was not insured.

Therefore, there are no merits in the case and there is no negligence or deficiency

of service on the part of the respondent.

5

8. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by us in the open forum, this the 12

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -

Ex. A1 X/c of construction equipment sales invoice cum dispatch memo,

dt. 27-6-2002.

Ex. A2 Insurance policy No. 1156/2007 issued by the respondent in favour of

the complainant.

Ex. A3 X/c of FIR No. 78/2007 of Rayachoty Police station.

Ex. A4 X/c of cash bill issued by Padmasree Heavy Earth Moving Spares,

Kadapa Dt. 12-5-2007.

Ex. A5 X/c of cash bill issued by Padmasree Heavy Earth Moving Spares,

Kadapa Dt. 18-5-2007.

Ex. A6 X/c of cash bill issued by Padmasree Heavy Earth Moving Spares,

Kadapa Dt. 19-5-2007.

Ex. A7 X/c of cash bill issued by Quality industries, Kadapa, dt. 21-3-2007.

Ex. A8 X/c of cash bill issued by Quality industries, Kadapa.

Ex. A9 Repudiation letter from respondent to complainant, dt. 19-12-2007.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: -

Ex. B1 X/c of spot survey report by Insurance Surveyor & loss assessor

B.A. Sammad Khan, dt. 6-7-2007.

Ex. B2 X/c of Motor Final survey report issued by A.C. Rami Reddy,

dt. 23-8-2007.

Ex. B3 X/c of motor claim scrutiny sheet.

Ex. B4 X/c of repudiation letter dt. 19-12-2007 from respondent to

complainant.

Ex. B5 X/c of policy issued by respondent in favour of complainant.

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1) Sri P. Subramanyam, 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. - - -