BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

     And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Thursday the  7^th day of April, 2011

C.C.No.80/10

BETWEEN:

A.Abdul Rahiman, S/o. A. Nadim Sab,

Stantanpuram, Kurnool - 518 004. Kurnool District.                                           

…Complainant

                                         -Vs-

1. The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office III (CBU),The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

    Rosy Towers, 2^nd Floor, No.7, Nungabakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034.

2. The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport and Finance Company Limited,

    H.No.40-581-A, 2^nd Floor, S.V.Complex, Kurnool 518 003.                                      

…Opposite Parties

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Shivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri. D.Srinivasulu, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri N.Guru Shankaraiah, Advocate for opposite party No.2 upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

   ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)

                                            C.C. No. 80/10

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

(a)    To direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.28,000/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 07-12-2007 till the date of realization.

(b)    To grant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony;

(c)    To grant the cost of the complaint;

1. To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 V 7680.   Opposite party No.1 is the insurer and opposite party No.2 is the financier of the said vehicle.  Opposite party No.1 issued the policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/16600 in favour of the complainant in respect of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 V 7680.  The said policy was in force from   19-12-2006 to 18-12-2007.  On 07-12-2007 the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident.  The complainant immediately informed about the accident to the opposite parties.  The complainant also submitted claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  The surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.28,000/-.  Inspite of several demands opposite party No.1 not settled the claim of the complainant. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 15-11-2009 to the opposite parties.   The opposite parties received the said notices, but no reply was given by opposite party No.1.   Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that the lorry of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1.   It is also admitted that after receiving the intimation about the accident a surveyor by name B.P.K.Reddy was appointed as spot surveyor to assess the damage caused to complainants lorry. The complainant failed to submit the necessary documents to settle the claim.  For the legal notice got issued by the complainant, opposite party No.1 gave a reply immediately.  The vehicle was not produced by the complainant for reinspection after carrying out the repairs.  The delay in settling the said claim is due to non co-operation from the insured.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  The complaint is barred by time.   The alleged accident took place on 07-12-2007 and the present complaint is filed beyond two years from the date of accident.   The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  Opposite party No.2 is not a proper and necessary party.  Opposite party No.2 is a financier.  Opposite party No.2 gave finance to the complainant to purchase the vehicle.  The documents received from the complainant regarding to settlement of the claim are forwarded to opposite party No.1.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.2.  It is opposite party No.1 who is liable to settle the claim of the complainant.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

        4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavits of Senior Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool and opposite party No.2 are filed. 

5.     Both parties filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by time?

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(c)                To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:- It is case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 07-12-2007 and that he submitted his claim to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  According to opposite party No.1 no claim has been received from the complainant through opposite party No.2 and that the present complaint filed on 31-12-2009 is barred by time.  It is stated by the complainant in his affidavit evidence that the accident took place on 07-12-2007.  Admittedly the complaint is filed on 31-12-2009 beyond two years from the date of the alleged accident on 07-12-2007.  The complainant did not place any documentary evidence on record to show that he submitted the claim to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 and that the said claim is pending with opposite party No.1.  Had opposite party No.2 submitted the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1, there must be some record with opposite party No.2.  No documentary evidence is filed by opposite party No.2 to establish that it submitted the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.2 no where in its written version stated the date on which it forwarded the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1.  Except the affidavit evidence of opposite party No.2 there is no documentary evidence to come to the conclusion that opposite party No.1 submitted the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1and the said claim of the complainant is pending with opposite party No.1.  The period of limitation to file the complaint is two years from the date of cause of action.  The cause of action to file the complaint has arisen on 07-12-2007.   The complainant ought to have filed the complaint on or before 07-12-2009.  But the complainant preferred the present complaint on 31-12-2009 beyond two years from the date of the alleged accident.  Therefore the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time.                                        

8.      Points 2 and 3:-   According to the complainant he is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 V 7680.  The complainant filed Ex.A6 copy of Registration Certification where in it is mentioned that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 V 7680.  Admittedly the complainant insured his vehicle bearing No.AP21 V 7680 with opposite party No.1 under the policy Ex.B3.  Ex.B3 policy was in force from 19-12-2006 to 18-12-2007.   It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle was damaged in the road accident that took place on 07-12-2007.  Opposite party No.1 denied that the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the road accident on           07-12-2007.  The complainant did not file the copy of the F.I.R. to show that his vehicle met with a road accident on 07-12-2007.  Admittedly after intimation about the accident, opposite party No.1 appointed a spot surveyor by name Sri B.P.K.Reddy.   Sri B.P.K.Reddy inspected the damaged vehicle and filed his report Ex.A5.  In the said report it is mentioned that the spot surveyor advised the insurer to report the matter to the concerned police.  It is not know whether the complainant gave a report to police about the accident.   

9.     It is the case of the complainant that his claim is pending with opposite party No.1 and it failed to settle the claim inspite of several demands.   According to opposite party No.1 the complainant did not prefer any claim and that there was deficiency of service on its part.  Admittedly for the legal notice got issued by the complainant, opposite party No.1 gave a reply stating that the complainant not intimated the name of the work shop where he had left the vehicle for repairs so as to unable opposite party No.1 to appoint final surveyor for the purpose of assessing the loss.  As already stated the complainant or opposite party No.2 failed to establish that the claim was submitted to opposite party No.1.  The date on which the claim of the complainant was submitted to opposite party No.1 is not mentioned in the complaint or in the written version of opposite party No.2.  The complainant is entitled to damages if it is shown that he got the damaged vehicle repaired by spending the amount.  There is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant got his vehicle repaired by purchasing the spare parts etc.  No evidence is placed by the complainant to show that reinspection after repairs was done by the surveyor.  It appears that the complainant acted negligently in making the claim.  There is no mention in the complaint that the complainant got his vehicle repaired after the accident.  The complainant did not give any opportunity to opposite party No.1 to make final assessment by intimating the work shop where he got his vehicle repaired.   In the absence of the clear evidence that the complainant got his vehicle repaired by spending his amount, opposite party No.1 who is the insurer cannot be hld responsible.  No deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 is found.   Therefore the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 

10.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the day 7^th of April, 2011.

         Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                  Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

       APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil                  For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Photo copy of legal notice dated 15-11-2009 along with postal acknowledgements.

Ex.A2.       Photo copy of letter dated 08-11-2010 to opposite party No.1 under RTI Act, along with postal receipt.

Ex.A3                Letter dated 26-11-2010.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of Policy No.411300/31/2007/16600.

Ex.A5        Photo copy of Survey report dated 12-12-2007.

Ex.A6        Photo copy of Registration Certificate Vehicle

No.AP21 V 7680 issued by RTA, Kurnool.

Ex.A7                Photo copy of reply dated 19-01-2010.

Ex.A8        Photo copy of letter dated 07-12-2010 to Divisional Manger, Oriental Insurance Company, Kurnool under RTI Act, along with postal receipt.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1        Photo copy of reply dated 19-01-2010 along with postal acknowledgement.

Ex.B2        Original Photos (12).

Ex.B3        Photo copy of Policy No.411300/31/2007/16600.

          Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                 Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                     PRESIDENT                  LADY MEMBER

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on                       :