| Complaint Case No. CC/10/14 |
| | | | 1. Poluri Ravi, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Occ: Owner of Auto bearing No. AP-20-Y-2444,R/o. SurdepalliVillage, Nelakondapalli Mandal,Khammam. | | Poluri Ravi, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Occ: Owner of Auto bearing No. AP-20-Y-2444,R/o. SurdepalliVillage, Nelakondapalli Mandal,Khammam. | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ...........Complainant(s) | | Versus | | 1. The Branch Manager,Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd.,H.No.40-1-53, 1st Floor, Annapurna Building,Opp: ICICI Bank, M.G. Road, Vijayawada. | | The Branch Manager,Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd.,H.No.40-1-53, 1st Floor, Annapurna Building,Opp: ICICI Bank, M.G. Road, Vijayawada. | | Krishna | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | | BEFORE THE DISTIRCT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 15th day of February 2011. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com, L.L.B., President 2. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., L.L.B., Member C.C.No.14/2010 Between: Poluri Ravi, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age:30years, Occu: Owner of Auto bearing No. AP 20 Y-2444, R/o Surdepalli (V), Nelakondapalli (M), Khammam District …. Complainant. And The Branch Manager, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., H.No.40-1-53, I floor, Annapurna Building, Opp. ICICI Bank, M.G.Road, Vijayawada. …Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Venkata Rama Rao, Advocate for complainant, Sri G. Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of auto bearing No. AP 20 Y-2444 and insured at Khammam with opposite party company vide cover note No.37256092 valid from 25-09-2008 to 24-09-2009. The complainant engaged an auto driver by name G. Venkateswarlu to drive his auto, on 19-10-2008 when the driver of the auto stopped the auto extreme left side of the road at Mudigonda center after crossing Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, while some of the passengers are intending to get down. Meantime, the driver of Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 37 Q-5067 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit the auto of the complainant, due to which the auto turned turtle, the auto badly damaged and the inmates of the auto sustained injuries. On report the Police Station, Mudigonda registered a case in Crime No.91/2008 on 09-10-2008 under section 337 IPC against car bearing No. AP 37 Q-5067. Subsequently, the complainant informed the same to the opposite party company through phone and shifted the auto to the Ape Auto Show Room, Khammam as per the instructions of opposite party. Sri K.L.Babu, surveyor of opposite party company estimated the damages caused to the auto. The said surveyor taken photographs and estimated the damages. The complainant had spent Rs.42,908/- towards replacing of spare parts, labour, tinkering charges and other expenses. The complainant submitted claim form along with all original bills to the surveyor of opposite party company, to submit before opposite party. And also submitted that the complainant made personal visit to the opposite party for settlement of the claim amount. Inspite of lapse of 13 months, the opposite party did not choose to settle the claim, on that the complainant got issued legal notice on 03-02-2009 and the same was served but the opposite party failed to pay the damages. Therefore, the complainant has no other option filed complaint for redressal. 2. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were field, which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A7. Ex.A1:- Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.91/2008, P.S., Mudigonda, dated 09-10-2008. Ex.A2:- Photo copy of Certificate of registration pertaining to Auto bearing No. AP 20 Y 2444, dated 30-09-2008. Ex.A3:- Office copy of legal notice dated 03-12-2009. Ex.A4:- Postal acknowledgement. Ex.A5:- Photo copy of insurance policy dated 25-09-2008. Ex.A6:- Photo copy of driving license dated 05-08-2003. Ex.A7:- Photo copy of bills (No. in 4), total amount of Rs.42,908/-. 3. On receipt of notice, opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In the counter, opposite party company admitted the averments of issuance of policy for the auto bearing No. AP 20 Y 2444 valid from 25-09-2008 to 24-09-2009. The opposite party denied that the complainant engaged an auto driver, on 09-10-2008 the driver of the said auto started from Khammam to Nelakondapally, the driver of the auto stopped the auto extreme left side of the road of Mudigonda Center at about 13.45 hrs., the driver of Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 37 Q 5067 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit the auto of the complainant, as a result the auto badly damaged and also the inmates of the auto sustained injuries. And also denied that the complainant informed the opposite party office through phone with regard to the damage caused to the auto, the auto was sifted to Ape Showroom, as per the instructions of opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party company has sent a surveyor by name K.L.Babu to estimate the damage caused to the auto of the complainant. The opposite party further submitted that a spot survey has been conducted as per O.D. department instructions and the surveyor assessed and estimated the loss assessment for Rs.31,400/-Further submitted that while scrutinizing the surveyor’s report, the O.D. department observed that as per the F.I.R. “that due to the accident that there are more than four persons traveled as against the seating capacity four in all in the insured vehicle auto at the time of the accident, therefore the O.D. department has repudiated the claim of the insured by intimating the same”. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party company and this complaint is not maintainable under law. To support their contention, opposite party company relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri Pawan Kumar Takkar. 4. To support their contention, the following documents were filed and marked as Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1:- True copy of Insurance policy dated 30-09-2008 Ex.B2:- Repudiation letter dated 23-12-2008. Ex.B3:- Insurance surveyor’s report dated 16-12-2008. 5. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are, 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim? 2) To what relief? Point No.1:- In this case, the complainant is the owner of auto bearing No. AP 20 Y 2444 and the auto was insured with the opposite party. On 19-10-2008 at 13.45 hours, when the driver of the auto stopped the auto extreme left side of the road at Mudigonda center, the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing NO. AP 37 Q 5067 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner with high speed, hit the auto of the complainant due to which the auto badly damaged. The complainant immediately informed the same to the opposite party company in turn the opposite party company appointed the surveyor to assess the damage caused to the auto, the auto was shifted to Ape Showroom, Khammam for repair. The complainant spent Rs.42,908/- towards repairing charges. The complainant personally visited the opposite party company for settlement of his claim and on 03-12-2009 got issued legal notice and the same was served to the opposite party company. Even after receiving the notice, as the opposite party company failed to pay the damages the complainant approached the forum. To support their case, opposite party company filed policy copy, surveyor’s report submitted by one K.L. Babu along with their counter. From the documents available on record, we observed that the driver of the auto stopped the auto extreme left side of the road at Mudigonda center, while some of the passenger intending to get down, the driver of Maruthi Car came in opposite direction hit the auto due to which the auto badly damaged. On report, police registered a case against the driver of the car. In this case, the damage was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Maruthi Car and at that time the auto was stopped on left side of the road. As per the opposite party company, there are more than four passengers were traveling as against seating capacity. As such the O.D. department has repudiated the claim of the insured and to support their case, they relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission and Apex Court. But the facts in the case relied by the opposite party company are entirely different from the present case and in that case, the crime vehicle was overloaded and traveled by unauthorized passengers at the time of accident. But in the present case, the crime vehicle is a Maruthi car and the same was driven by its driver rash and negligently due to which the complainant’s auto was badly damaged. As per the complainant, he immediately informed the accident to the opposite party company and as per their advice, he shifted the auto to Ape Showroom. As per Ex.B.3, the surveyor of the opposite party company assessed the damage caused to the auto of the complainant and given his report. From the record, we observed that the accident occurred within one month from the date of purchase. In surveyor K.L.Babu report, as per Ex.B3, in page No.5 he assessed loss and in 10.03 Section ‘A’ for spare parts 8 to 16, lessed 50% depreciation and assessed the amount as Rs.1,612/-. As per Ex.B1, vehicle purchased on 25-09-2008 and the accident occurred on 09-10-2008 i.e. within 15 days, in this circumstance the depreciation as assessed by surveyor in his report in Ex.B3 cannot be taken into consideration. By observing the surveyors report, Rs. P. Section ‘A’ Allowed Amount : - 30,476.00 - 3,224.00 Section ‘B’ Labour Charges : - 7,800.00 ___________ 41,500.00 Less C.V Policy excess : - 500.00 ___________ 41,000.00 Less Expected Salvage Value : - 4,688.00 ___________ Net Assed Loss : 36,312.00 ___________ Therefore from the above, we accept the claim of the complainant in part. Thus the amount payable comes to Rs.36,312/-. Point No.2:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.36,312/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twelve only) with interest @9%p.a. from the date of repudiation (i.e. 23-12-2008) and also awarded Rs.2000/- towards cost of the litigation. Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 15th day of February, 2011. PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant:- None Witnesses examined for opposite parties:- None Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A1:- Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.91/2008, P.S., Mudigonda, dated 09-10-2008. Ex.A2:- Photo copy of Certificate of registration pertaining to Auto bearing No. AP 20 Y 2444, dated 30-09-2008. Ex.A3:- Office copy of legal notice dated 03-12-2009. Ex.A4:- Postal acknowledgement. Ex.A5:- Photo copy of insurance policy dated 25-09-2008. Ex.A6:- Photo copy of driving license dated 05-08-2003. Ex.A7:- Photo copy of bills (No. in 4), total amount of Rs.42,908/-. Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- Ex.B1:- True copy of Insurance policy dated 30-09-2008 Ex.B2:- Repudiation letter dated 23-12-2008. Ex.B3:- Insurance surveyor’s report dated 16-12-2008 PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM | |
