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 31^st day of March, 2011

C.C.No 52/10

Between:

B.Rama Krishna, S/o. B. Rajanna,

H.No. 4-216, Kota Veedhi, Yemmiganur - 518 360,  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. Opp. 2 Town Police Station, Adoni - 518 301.                     

           …Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri N.Isaiah, 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. 52/10

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.2,54,010/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 20-08-2007 till the date of realization;

(b)    To grant a sum of Rs. 40,000/- 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 vehicle bearing No.AP21 X 7240.  The opposite party No.1 is the insurer and opposite party No.2 is the financier of the said vehicle. Opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No. 411300/31/2007/25306 in favour of the complainant and it was valid from 17-03-2007 to 16-03-2008.  The vehicle of the complainant is damaged in the accident that took place on 20-08-2007.  The complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties.  Later the complainant submitted claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor who estimated the loss at Rs.2,54,010/-.  Opposite party No.1 not settled the claim inspite of several demands.  The complainant got issued a legal notice on 15-10-2009.  Opposite parties received the said notices.  Opposite party No.2 gave a reply.  Opposite party No.1 has not given any reply.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that opposite party No.1 issued insurance policy Ex.A1 in respect of the complainants lorry bearing No.AP21 X 7240.  It is also admitted that the lorry of the complainant met with an accident on 20-08-2007.  After receiving the legal notice got issued by the complainant, opposite party No.1gave a reply notice informing that the claim of the complainant is pending for want of necessary documents like RC, DL ect.  The complainant filed the complaint without submitting the necessary documents.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.   The delay is settling the claim is due to negligence of complainant in submitting the necessary documents.  The accident took place on 20-08-2007 the complaint is filed two years after the accident.  The complainant is barred by time.  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 A11 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 and B2 are marked and sworn affidavits of Senior Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool and opposite party No.2 are filed.

5.     Both sides 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 :  Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 X 7240 Ex.A2 is the registration certificate e of the said lorry.  Opposite party No.1 issued insurance policy Ex.A1 in favour of the complainant in respect of vehicle bearing No.AP21 X 7240.  The said policy was in force from 17-03-2007 to 16-03-2008.  According to the complainant his vehicle is damaged in the accident that took place on 20-08-2007.  The opposite party No.1 in its reply notice Ex.B1 admitted that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident. The complainant also filed Ex.A7 to show that his vehicle met with an accident and paid compounding fee of Rs.500/- on 02-09-2007.  The complainant filed present complaint on 24-11-2009 i.e. two years after the date of the accident.  The period of limitation for filing the complainant under Consumer Protection starts from the date of repudiation of the claim.  Admittedly the claim of the complainant is pending with opposite party No.1 by the date of the filing of the complaint.  Therefore the contention of the opposite party No.1 that the complaint is barred by time cannot be accepted.  

8.     Points 2 and 3:-        The complainant filed the present complaint claiming damages of Rs.2,54,010/-.  According to the complainant the accident took place on 20-08-2007.  Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident.  The claim of the complainant is pending with opposite party No.1.  The complainant filed Ex.A10 spot surveyor report of B.A.Samad Khan dated 05-09-2007.  Opposite party No.1 filed Ex.B2 final surveyor report of Simax Surveyors dated 26-12-2007.  In the said report it is mentioned that the damaged vehicle was reinspected and that the vehicle was repaired satisfactorily.  It is also mentioned in Ex.B2 that net liability of the insurer is Rs.42,192/-.  The complainant did not place satisfactorily evidence on record to show that the loss is Rs.2,54,010/-.  It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that it could not settle the claim of the complainant as he failed to submit documents like RC, DL, Permit ect.  The final survey was concluded on 26-12-2007.  Opposite party No.1 did not place any documentary evidence to show that it demanded the complainant to produce the documents like driving license RC, etc.  Admittedly a spot surveyor was appointed after receiving the intimation about the accident.   In Ex.A10 spot survey report it is mentioned that he verified registration certificate, the driving license of the driver of the vehicle, Permit, F.C, ect.  Opposite party No.1 kept quite negligently without taking steps to settle the claim till the complainant got issued legal notice dated 15-10-2009.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1

9.     In result, the complaint is  partly allowed directing opposite party No.1 to pay damages of Rs.42,192/- to the complainant, with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint i.e 24-11-2009 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 500/-.  The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 31^st day of March, 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 Insurance Policy No.411300/31/2007/25306.

Ex.A2.       Photo copy of Certificate of Registration of Vehicle

No.AP21 X 7240 issued by R.T.O. Kurnool.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of National Permit.

Ex.A4        Photo copy of Driving License of B.Mahadevappa.

Ex.A5        Photo copy of receipt dated 19-08-2007 for Rs.7,200/- issued by Five star mini lorry transport, Yemmiganur.

Ex.A6        Photo copy of certificate issued by S.I. of police, Nannur P.S. Kadapa District.

Ex.A7                Receipt No.224716 of Traffic Police, Hyderabad,

for Rs.500/- dated 02-09-2007.

Ex.A8        Photo copy of bill for Rs.2,54,010/- issued by Sree Srinivasa Auto Garage, Yemmiganur.

Ex.A9                Photo copy of Motor claim form.

Ex.A10       Photo copy of survey spot report dated 05-09-2007 issued by B.A.Samad Khan along with photos.

Ex.A11       Office copy of legal notice dated 15-10-2009.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Letter dated 12-11-2009 issued by opposite party No.1.

Ex.B2                Motor final survey report dated 26-12-2007.

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               :