Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/97/2016

Sri H.M.Manjunath S/o H.R.Murugesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manger,new India Assurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.J.Lakshminarasimha

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:21.10.2016

DISPOSED      ON:13.09.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 97/2016

 

DATED:  13^th SEPTEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,                   

……COMPLAINANT	H.M. Manjunatha, S/o H.R. Murugesh, Age: 29 Years, Business and Agriculture, Hullur Village, Hireguntnuru village, Chitradurga Taluk.   Now Residing at 4th Cross, Nehru Nagara, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga.        (Rep by Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Vijayashri, Opp: Nanjundeswara Petrol Bunk, Davanagere Road, Chitradurga.   2. Authorized Signatory, VIN Auto Show Room, Tata Cars and Tata Finance Dealers, Bheemasamudra Road, Besides J.M. Gas Agencies, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. K. Mohan Bhat, Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri. B.M. Anil Kumar, Advocate for OP No.2 )

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.3,66,100/- with interest @ 24% p.a, Rs.1,25,000/- towards financial loss, mental agony, loss of earnings etc., to return Rs.50,000/- which is paid by the complainant to OP No.2 with interest @ 2% p.m till payment, with cost and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, complainant is the owner of Tata Zest Car bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06/TU002017/2015-16, the same was purchased by him on credit basis.  The same was insured with OP No.1.  The OP No.2 is the seller and lender of the loan for the said car.  Due to some personal inconvenience and also due to some paucity, complainant was unable to get the permanent registration of the said car.  OPs also having the burden to get registration of the said car since they are the financer of the same.  OP No.2 is tie-up with OP No.1 with regard to coverage of insurance policies.  OP No.1 issued the valid policy cum Certificate on 18.08.2015 which was valid till 17.08.2016 under Policy No.12140431150100158345 covering all types of risks i.e., private car package policy by collecting huge amount of Rs.27,697/-.  OP No.2 requested the complainant to obtain insurance with OP No.1 only and the same was in force on the date of accident.  Complainant has taken loan from the OP No.2 since it has also dealing the Tata Loans also.  It is further submitted that, the above said car of the complainant met with an accident on 13.10.2015 and immediately complainant informed the same to OP No.2.  OP No.2 has taken the said car to their Tata Show Room i.e., VIN Auto on 14.10.2015 by collecting Rs.50,000/- as an advance amount for the accident vehicle and assured that, the same will be returned after taking necessary insurance claim from OP No.1.  It is further submitted that, OP No.2 also informed the complainant that, it will send the necessary intimation about the accident and send necessary claim papers to OP No.1.  By believing the words of OP No.2, complainant orally intimated to the OP No.1.  Thereafter, complainant submitted necessary claim papers to the OPs and OPs have conducted spot survey.  But, they have not honour the request of the complainant regarding the claim and OP No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on vague reasons though there is a bounden duty to give damages to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, on the date of accident, the driver who droves the vehicle was having valid DL and the policy was in force and the complainant has intimated the accident details to both the OPs.  Hence, both are liable to pay necessary claims to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, OP No.2 has informed the complainant to pay Rs.3,66,000/- for handing over the vehicle to him.  The complainant is facing financial crisis and also paid Rs.50,000/- to OP No.2 by raising loan on interest basis and left the vehicle with OP No.2.  Both the OPs have shown negligent act towards the complainant for which, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and sufferings.  It is submitted that, mere non registration of the vehicle and mere non giving of the complaint to the jurisdictional police are not the grounds for repudiation of the claims or any customers of respective insurance company.  The complainant has produced all the documents to OPs.  But, both of them colluded with each other and repudiated the legal claims under the said policy.  The complainant has failed to understand that what is the necessity of insuring the vehicle and also to get the vehicle from OP No.2.  The conducting of survey is admitted by OP No.1.  The act of the OPs in repudiating the claim is illegal, high handed and the same are against to the Principles of Natural Justice.  It is the duty of OP No.2 to inform about the details of accident to the OP No.1 since the complainant has informed the same to OP No.2 within a short time.  It is further submitted that as per the M.V. Act, there is a provision for getting the permanent registration of the vehicle at any point of time by paying the necessary late fee, fine and etc., and it is not the ground for repudiation of the claim from OP No.1.   The registration of the vehicle is a procedural aspects but, it is not the prime condition for repudiation of the claim.   The cause of action arise for the complaint arose on 13.10.2015 when the vehicle met with an accident, then the OPs have got surveyed the same but not settle the claim.  Therefore, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs on 10.08.2016 but, it went in vain.  Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for allowing the complaint. 

3.      On service of notice OP No.1 appeared through Sri. K. Mohan Bhat, Advocate and filed version admitting about issuance of the Policy bearing No.12140431150100158345 valid for the period from 18.08.2015 to 17.08.2016 to the new vehicle Tata Zest car bearing Reg. No.KA-06/TU002017/2015-16,o.91459 as per the policy subject to the terms and conditions.   It is further admitted by the OP No.1 that, complainant is the owner of the above said car bearing Temporary Registration Number.  OP No.1 at Mumbai office was issued the policy but, OP No.1 has not known that the complainant has purchased the car on credit basis and due to personal inconvenience and some paucity, he was unable to get the permanent registration, the same also expired on 18.09.2015.  As per the M.V Act and Rules, without permanent registration any vehicle not plays in public roads.  The vehicle met with any accident without permanent registration number, OP No.1 is not liable to pay any damages.  The complainant has violated the policy conditions and M.V. Act.  OP No.1 is only a serving branch and the rest of the averments are denied as false.  It is false to state that, complainant orally intimated about the accident to the OP No.1 and also about the damages.  After receiving the claim intimation letter and Motor Claim Form dated 22.04.2016, OP No.1 came to know that the said car met with an accident on 13.10.2015.  But, the complainant has not intimated about the accident to the Head Office situated at Mumbai or Branch Office at Chitradurga about the accident immediately.  It is not known to the OP No.1 that, complainant informed to the OP No.2 on 14.10.2015 and the said OP No.2 has received Rs.50,000/- as an advance amount for the accident vehicle and assured that, Vin Auto will return the same amount after taking necessary insurance claim from OP No.1.  OP No.1 has not received any information from OP No.2 immediately after the accident occurred on 13.10.2014 and OP No.1 has received the claim form on 22.04.2016 after more than six months.  Complainant has produced estimation issued by Sri. Murugarajendra Service Station, Chitradurga issued on 14.01.2016 and the same was submitted to their company on 22.04.2016 and appointed a surveyor to assess the loss.  The surveyor confirmed that, after the accident, the vehicle was left at M/s Vin Auto, Chitradurga on 14.10.2015 and it was already repaired the damaged vehicle to the extent of 60% to 70% as on the date of inspection i.e., on 28.04.2016.  On enquiry, the complainant has stated that, the estimate issued by OP No.2, the dealer M/s Vin Auto, Chitradurga was submitted to the company on 02.05.2016.  It is further submitted that, the accident was major, opportunity was not given to the insurance company to conduct spot survey and no information was given about the accident and the same was not reported to the jurisdictional police.  The vehicle was playing on a public road without permanent registration as on the date of alleged accident.  As per Section 39 and 43 of the M.V Act, the same is fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and the violation of the statutory provisions of the law contained in M.V Act, the same was informed to the complainant on 28.06.2016.  The No.1 has not shown any negligence of service and the vehicle without the registration it cannot get compensation from OP No.1.   Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.      OP No.2 appeared through Sri. B.M. Anil Kumar, Advocate and filed version admitting about the complainant is the owner of Tata Zest Car bearing T.R No.KA-06/TU002017/2015-16 and the same purchased from OP No.2, insured with the OP No.1 under policy cum Certificate No.1214043115010015835 covering all types of risks under P.C package policy for the period from 18.08.2015 to 17.08.2016 and the same was in force as on the date of accident, the registration is temporary.  But, it is denied that, the burden to get the same as permanent registration is on the part of OP No.2 as it is a financier and OP No.2 is tied up with OP No.1 is denied as false.  It is submitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident and immediately the same was informed to OP No.2 and OP No.2 taken the vehicle to its show room and collected Rs.50,000/- as advance amount and that he assured the complainant that, it will return the advance amount after taking necessary insurance claim from OP No.1, OP No.2 informed that OP No.2 will send the necessary information about the accident and also necessary claim papers to OP No.1 are all denied as false.  It is further denied that, by believing the words of OP No.2 complainant has submitted necessary papers to OP No.2 and OP No.1 conducted spot survey and OP No.2 informed about the accident to OP No.1.  The allegations that, the OP No.2 has informed the complainant to pay Rs.3,66,100/- for handing over the car and the OP No.2 colluded with OP No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant even though he has supplied all the necessary documents.  It is true that the complainant left his car to the OP No.2 for repairs and has paid Rs.50,000/- as an advance amount.  It is submitted that, the said car insured with OP No.2 and it has failed to give service in settling the claim are all denied as false.  The duty of the OP No.2 is to inform the details of the accident to OP No.1 as the same was informed to it, by the complainant is denied as false. 

It is further submitted that, OP No.2 is the seller and lender for the said car and the complainant has availed loan with Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Shimoga Branch but not with OP No.2 subject to certain terms and conditions by hypothecating the said vehicle in favour of Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Shimoga Branch by executing legal documents.  At the instance and option of complainant, the vehicle has been insured with OP No.1 and OP No.1 has issued policy covering all the risks and OP No.1 has to indemnify the loss and damages caused to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further submitted that, in view of the accident in question, the dispute is between the complainant and OP No.1.  It is stated that, on the intimation of the complainant to this OP No.2 to the effect that, the said car met with an accident near JMIT College, Chitradurga on NH-4 and severely damaged.  The same was brought by OP No.2 to its show room on 14.10.2015 and advised the complainant to intimate about the accident to OP No.1 and the complainant agreed to the same.  It is further submitted that, in order to approach the OP No.1, at the request of the complainant, OP No.2 gave repair estimation dated 14.10.2015 to the complainant for Rs.4,30,819/- inclusive of spare parts, labour charges and tax but, the complainant averred to the extent of Rs.3,66,100/- only, may be oversight.  It is further submitted that, as the estimation of repairs was of more than Rs.4.00 lakhs, the complainant voluntarily paid advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to OP No.2, the same is received under receipt dated 14.10.2015.  Thereafter, for the best reasons known to him, he did not turn up for many days and it was learnt that, the OP No.1 was not inclined to indemnify the damages on the ground that, the vehicle has not been registered with permanent registration number as per the statutory provisions inspite of contacts by this OP No.2 on one or the other grounds.  Thereafter, complainant took his vehicle from this OP No.2 to some other service center and later brought back to OP No.2 for the reasons best known to him.  In view of the payment of the advance amount, OP No.2 has carried out some repairs to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-6 were got marked. On behalf of OPs one Sri. A.V. Chandrashekharaiah, Branch Manager of OP No.1 examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence, One Sri. S. Vasanth, Branch Manager of OP No.2 examined as DW-2 by filing affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to B-3 documents have been got marked.   

6.      Arguments of both sides heard.

7.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          8.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

9.      It is not in dispute that, complainant is the owner of Tata Zest Car bearing Temporary Registration No.                                KA-06/TU002017/2015-16. He purchased the same on credit basis and insured with OP No.1.  The OP No.2 is the seller and lender of the loan for the said car.  Due to some personal inconvenience and also due to some paucity, complainant was unable to get the permanent registration of the said car.  OP No.2 is tie-up with OP No.1 with regard to coverage of insurance policies.  OP No.1 issued the valid policy cum Certificate on 18.08.2015 which was valid till 17.08.2016 under Policy No.12140431150100158345 covering all types of risks i.e., private car package policy by collecting huge amount of Rs.27,697/-.  The above said car of the complainant met with an accident on 13.10.2015 and immediately complainant informed the same to OP No.2.  OP No.2 has taken the said car to their Tata Show Room i.e., VIN Auto on 14.10.2015 by collecting Rs.50,000/- as an advance amount for the accident vehicle and assured that, the same will be returned after taking necessary insurance claim from OP No.1.   OP No.2 also informed the complainant that, it will send the necessary intimation about the accident and send necessary claim papers to OP No.1.  Thereafter, complainant submitted necessary claim papers to the OPs and OPs have conducted spot survey.  But, they have not honour the request of the complainant regarding the claim and OP No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on vague reasons though there is a bounden duty to give damages to the complainant.  Hence, both are liable to pay necessary claims to the complainant.  OP No.2 has informed the complainant to pay Rs.3,66,000/- for handing over the vehicle to him.  The complainant is facing financial crisis and also paid Rs.50,000/- to OP No.2 by raising loan on interest basis and left the vehicle with OP No.2.  Mere non registration of the vehicle and mere non-giving of the complaint to the jurisdictional police are not the grounds for repudiation of the claims or any customers of respective insurance company.  The complainant has produced all the documents to OPs.  But, both the OPs have colluded with each other and repudiated the legal claims under the said policy.  The conducting of survey is admitted by OP No.1.  The act of the OPs in repudiating the claim is illegal, high handed and the same are against to the Principles of Natural Justice.  OP No.2 has the duty to inform about the details of accident to the OP No.1 since the complainant has informed the same to OP No.2 within a short time.  As per the M.V. Act, there is a provision for getting the permanent registration of the vehicle at any point of time by paying the necessary late fee, fine and etc., and it is not the ground for repudiation of the claim from OP No.1.   The registration of the vehicle is a procedural aspects but, it is not the prime condition for repudiation of the claim.  

10.    In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like repudiation letter dated 28.06.2016 marked as Ex.A-1, original receipt dated 14.10.2015 issued by OP No.2 for having received Rs.50,000/- marked as Ex.A-2, copy of legal notice dated 05.08.2016 marked as Ex.A-3, reply notice dated 02.09.2016 marked as Ex.A-4, two postal receipts and postal acknowledgements marked as Ex.A-5, positive photos six in numbers marked as Ex.A-6.

11.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OP No.1 that, it has issued insurance Policy bearing No.12140431150100158345 valid for the period from 18.08.2015 to 17.08.2016 to the new vehicle Tata Zest car bearing Reg. No.KA-06/TU002017/2015-16,o.91459 as per the policy subject to the terms and conditions.   Complainant is the owner of the above said car bearing Temporary Registration Number.  OP No.1 at Mumbai office was issued the policy.  Complainant has purchased the car on credit basis and due to personal inconvenience and some paucity, he was unable to get the permanent registration, the same also expired on 18.09.2015.  As per the M.V Act and Rules, without permanent registration any vehicle not plays in public road.  The vehicle met with any accident without permanent registration number, OP No.1 is not liable to pay any damages.  The complainant has violated the policy conditions and M.V. Act.  OP No.1 is only a serving branch. It is denied that, complainant orally intimated about the accident to the OP No.1 and also about the damages.  After receiving the claim intimation letter and Motor Claim Form dated 22.04.2016, OP No.1 came to know that the said car met with an accident on 13.10.2015.  But, the complainant has not intimated about the accident to the Head Office situated at Mumbai or Branch Office at Chitradurga about the accident immediately.  Complainant informed to the OP No.2 on 14.10.2015 and the said OP No.2 has received Rs.50,000/- as an advance amount for the accident vehicle and assured that, Vin Auto will return the same amount after taking necessary insurance claim from OP No.1 is not known to it.   OP No.1 has not received any information from OP No.2 immediately after the accident occurred on 13.10.2014 and OP No.1 has received the claim form on 22.04.2016 after more than six months.  Complainant has produced estimation issued by Sri. Murugarajendra Service Station, Chitradurga issued on 14.01.2016 and the same was submitted to their company on 22.04.2016 and appointed a surveyor to assess the loss, the surveyor confirmed that, after the accident, the vehicle was left at M/s Vin Auto, Chitradurga on 14.10.2015 and it was already repaired the damaged vehicle to the extent of 60% to 70% as on the date of inspection i.e., on 28.04.2016.  On enquiry, the complainant has stated that, the estimate issued by OP No.2, the dealer M/s Vin Auto, Chitradurga was submitted to the company on 02.05.2016.  The accident was major, opportunity was not given to the insurance company to conduct spot survey and no information was given about the accident and the same was not reported to the jurisdictional police.  The vehicle was playing on a public road without permanent registration as on the date of alleged accident which is a violation of Section 39 and 43 of the M.V Act.  The No.1 has not shown any negligence of service.

12.    It is argued by OP No.2 that, the complainant is the owner of Tata Zest Car bearing T.R No.KA-06/TU002017/2015-16 and insured with the OP No.1 under policy cum Certificate No.1214043115010015835 covering all types of risks under P.C package policy for the period from 18.08.2015 to 17.08.2016 and the same was in force as on the date of accident, the registration is temporary.  But, it is denied that, the burden to get the same as permanent registration is on the part of OP No.2 as it is a financier and OP No.2 is tied up with OP No.1 is denied as false.  The said vehicle met with an accident and immediately the same has been informed to OP No.2 and OP No.2 taken the vehicle to its show room and collected Rs.50,000/- as advance amount and that assured the complainant that, it will return the advance amount after taking necessary insurance claim from OP No.1.  OP No.2 informed that it will send the necessary information about the accident and also necessary claim papers to OP No.1.  By believing the words of OP No.2 complainant has submitted necessary papers and OP No.1 conducted spot survey and OP No.2 informed about the accident to OP No.1.   The allegations that, the OP No.2 has informed the complainant to pay Rs.3,66,100/- for handing over the car and the OP No.2 colluded with OP No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant even though he has supplied all the necessary documents.  It is true that the complainant left his car to the OP No.2 for repairs and has paid Rs.50,000/- as an advance amount.  The said car insured with OP No.2 and it has failed to give service in settling the claim are all denied as false.  The duty of the OP No.2 is to inform the details of the accident to OP No.1 as the same was informed to it, by the complainant is denied as false.  It is further submitted that, OP No.2 is the seller and lender for the said car and the complainant has availed loan with Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Shimoga Branch but not with OP No.2 subject to certain terms and conditions by hypothecating the said vehicle in favour of Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Shimoga Branch by executing legal documents.  At the instance and option of complainant, the vehicle has been insured with OP No.1 and issued policy covering all the risks and OP No.1 has to indemnify the loss and damages caused to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  In view of the accident in question, the dispute is between the complainant and OP No.1.  On the intimation of the complainant to this OP No.2 to the effect that, the said car met with an accident near JMIT College, Chitradurga on NH-4 and severely damaged.  The same was brought by OP No.2 to its show room on 14.10.2015 and advised the complainant to intimate about the accident to OP No.1 and the complainant agreed to the same.  In order to approach the OP No.1, at the request of the complainant, OP No.2 gave repair estimation dated 14.10.2015 to the complainant for Rs.4,30,819/- inclusive of spare parts, labour charges and tax but, the complainant averred to the extent of Rs.3,66,100/- only, may be oversight.  As the estimation of repairs was of more than Rs.4.00 lakhs, the complainant voluntarily paid advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to OP No.2, the same is received under receipt dated 14.10.2015.  Thereafter, for the best reasons known to him, he did not turn up for many days and it was learnt that, the OP No.1 was not inclined to indemnify the damages on the ground that, the vehicle has not been registered with permanent registration number as per the statutory provisions inspite of contacts by this OP No.2 on one or the other grounds.  Thereafter, complainant took his vehicle from this OP No.2 to some other service center and later brought back to OP No.2 for the reasons best known to him.  In view of the payment of the advance amount, OP No.2 has carried out some repairs to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. 

13.    In support of their contention, the OPs have filed their respective affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like policy copy marked as Ex.B-1, motor claim form marked as Ex.B-2 and job card dated 14.10.2015 marked as Ex.B-3.

14.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, complainant is the RC owner of Tata Zest Car bearing Temporary Registration No. KA-06/TU002017/2015-16.  The OP No.2 is the seller and lender of the loan for the said car.  Due to some personal inconvenience and also due to some paucity, complainant was unable to get the permanent registration of the said car.  OPs are also having the burden to get registration of the said car since they are the financer of the same.  OP No.2 is tie-up with OP No.1 with regard to coverage of insurance policies.  OP No.1 issued the valid policy cum Certificate on 18.08.2015 which was valid till 17.08.2016 under Policy No.12140431150100158345 covering all types of risks i.e., private car package policy by collecting huge amount of Rs.27,697/-.  The above said car of the complainant met with an accident on 13.10.2015 and immediately complainant informed the same to OP No.2.  OP No.2 has taken the said car to their Tata Show Room i.e., VIN Auto on 14.10.2015 by collecting Rs.50,000/- as an advance amount for the accident vehicle and assured that, the same will be returned after taking necessary insurance claim from OP No.1.   Thereafter, complainant submitted necessary claim papers to the OPs and OPs have conducted spot survey.  But, they have not honour the request of the complainant.  OP No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is a bounden duty on its part to give damages to the complainant.  On the date of accident, the driver who droves the vehicle was having valid DL and the policy was in force and the complainant has intimated the accident details to both the OPs.  The complainant also paid Rs.50,000/- to OP No.2 and left the vehicle with OP No.2.  Both the OPs have shown negligent act towards the complainant for which, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony and financial loss.  The contention taken by the complainant that, mere non-registration of the vehicle and mere non-giving of the complaint to the jurisdictional police are not the grounds for repudiation of the claims or any customers of respective insurance company is accepted.  The complainant is having temporary registration to his car at the time of accident, the same may be registered at any point of time by paying fine amount.  Moreover, the policy was in force at the time of accident.   Such being the case, the question of repudiation does not sustainable under law.   Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            15.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,66,100/- the cost of repair of the vehicle, Rs.50,000/- the advance amount received from the complainant in all a sum of Rs.4,16,100/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 13/09/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW.1:-On behalf of OP No.1 Sri. A.V. Chandrashekharaiah, Branch Manager by way of affidavit evidence.

DW.2:- On behalf of OP No.2 Sri.S. Vasanth, Branch Manager by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex.A-1:-	Repudiation letter dated 28.06.2016
02	Ex.A-2:-	Original receipt dated 14.10.2015 issued by OP No.2 for having received Rs.50,000/-
03	Ex.A-3:-	Copy of legal notice dated 05.08.2016
04	Ex.A-4:-	Reply notice dated 02.09.2016
05	Ex.A-5:-	Two postal receipts and postal acknowledgements
06	Ex.A-6:-	Six Positive photos

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

 

01	Ex.B-1:-	Copy of policy
02	Ex.B-2:-	Motor claim form
03	Ex.B-3:-	Job card dated 14.10.2015

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**