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
Wednesday the 15th day of December,2010
C.C.No 45/10
Between:
P.Prasada Rao, S/o. P.Neelakanta Rao,
H.No.16-142-4, Srinivasapuram, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office VIII, The National Insurance Company Limited,
Mamanji Centre, II Floor, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Post Box No.3162, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
2. The Branch Manager,Shriram Transport and Finance Co.Ltd.,
H.No.2-414 A, 1st Floor, TTD Road,Opp. Raj Theatre, Nandyal - 518 501 Kurnool District.
… Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao , Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. K. Muralidhar, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri. N. Guru Shankaraiah , Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 45/10
- This complaint is filed under section 11 & 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
(a) to pay Rs.37,100/- towards damages with interest @ 24% from the date of accident i.,e 08-04-2005 till the date of realization
(b) to grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony
( c) to grant the cost of the compliant
(d) to grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA 34 C 4488. The complainant insured his vehicle with OP.No.1 under policy No. 04/6332002. The policy was valid from 14-12-2004 to 13-12-2005. On 08-04-2005 the vehicle was damaged in the accident. The complainant informed about the accident to OP.No.1. The complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to OP.No.1 through OP.No.2. The surveyor estimated the loss of Rs.37,100/-. OP.No.1 not settled the claim inspite of the demands made by the complainant number of times. The complainant also got issued a legal notice to OP.No1. OP.No.1 received the said notice and gave reply with false allegations. The complainant suffered mental agony due to the non payment of claim amount by the OP.No.1. The delay in settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The fitness certificate was called from the insured through a letter dated 29-08-2006. In the said letter it was informed that the fitness certificate should be produced within 15 days otherwise the claim will be treated to be closed. The said letter was sent to the insured by registered post. The said letter was returned. The claim was assessed for Rs.37,100/-. There was no dereliction of duty on the part of OP.No.1. The claim was abanded by the insured. For the notice got issued by the complainant , OP.No.1 gave a suitable reply. The complainant did not respond within the stipulated time. He did not co-operate. There was no deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.1. The complaint is bared by time. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
OP.No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with OP.No2. An endorsement to that effect is made in the RC infavour of OP.No.2. It is true that the vehicle of the complainant met with accident on 08-04-2005. The claim of the complainant was forwarded to OP.No.1. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.2. OP.No.2 is unnecessarily added in this complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP.No.2.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A11 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B5 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.1 and 2 are filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(iii) whether the complaint is bared by time ?
(iv) To what relief?
7. Point No.1 & 2: Admittedly the complainant who is the owner of the vehicle No. KA 34 C 4488 insured it with OP.No.1 and OP.No.1 issued Ex.B5 insurance policy. The said policy was inforce on 14-12-2004 to 13-12-2005. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 08-04-2005 and that he submitted all the papers along with claim form to OP.No.1 through OP.No.2. It is admitted by OP.No.2 who is the financier of the vehicle of the complainant that the papers submitted by the complainant were sent to OP.No.1 for settlement of the claim. OP.No.1 in his written statement admitted that the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.37,100/- . It is the contention of OP.No.1 that the complainant did not extend his cooperation for settlement of claim and that the claim was treated as closed. OP.No.1 filed Ex.A1 copy of the letter said to have been addressed to the complainant. In the said letter the complainant was directed to produce copy of the fitness certificate of the vehicle. It is also the case of OP.No.1 that the said letter was sent through registered post and the same was returned as the complainant was not traced. According to the complainant he was residing at Tadipatri in Anantapur District and that OP.No.1 sent Ex.B1 to Bellary. Ex.B5 is the insurance policy. In the insurance policy it is mentioned that the complainant is a resident of Tadipatri in Anantapur District. The complainant was not served with Ex.B1. Admittedly no repudiation letter was served on the complainant by OP.No.1. OP.No.1 did not file the copy of the surveyors report for the reasons best now inpsite of the notice issued by the complainants counsel . As already stated OP.No.1 admitted in his written version that the claim of the complainant was assessed at Rs.37,100/-. Merely because the complainant did not produce the fitness certificate of the vehicle it can be said that the complainant is not entitled to the assured amount. The complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of the fitness certificate of the vehicle issued by RTO, Bellary. OP.No.1 did not serve the copy of Ex.B1 on the complainant. Without serving Ex.B1, the OP.No.1 can not treat the claim of the complainant as closed. Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant is insured with OP.No.1. The report of the surveyor must be given much weight. OP.No.1 not paid the amount to the complainant. There was deficiency of service on the part of the OP.NO.1. The complainant is entitled to Rs.37,100/- as assessed by the surveyor along with interest.
8. Point No3: It is the case of OP.No.1 that the complaint is bared by time. The complainant filed the present complaint on 31-12-2009. The period of limitation for filling of the complaint is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the case the insurance claims the period of limitation starts from the date of repudiation of the claim by the insurance company. No letter of repudiation was served by OP.No.1 on the complainant. Admittedly the complainant got issued a legal notice prior to the filling of the complaint. OP.No.1 gave a reply dated 27-11-2009 stating that the claim was closed with proper notice to the insured by RPAD. No document is filed by OP.No.1 to show that notice was served on the complainant stating that the claim was closed for non production of required documents. Admittedly the claim was not repudiated by the OP.No.1. The complainant filed the present complaint within period of two years from 27-11-2009. The complaint is well in time.
9. Point No4:- In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP.No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.37,100/- to the complainant with subsequent interest at 9% p.a from the date of the complaint i.,e 31-12-2009 till the date of realization along with costs of Rs.500/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 15th day of December, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Certificate of Registration and fitness issued by R.T.O Bellary.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Driving License dt. 20-01-1996.
Ex.A3. Photo copy of motor vehicle Taxation Card Vehicle NO.KA34-C488.
Ex.A4. Photo copy of National Permit for goods carriage of the vehicle No.KA-34-C4488.
Ex.A5. Photo copy of authorization letter dt. 07-01-2005.
Ex.A6. Photo copy of motor vehicle insurance cover note.
Ex.A7. Photo copy of check report cum receipt dt.08-04-2005.
Ex.A8. Photo copy of panchanama report.
Ex.A9. Photo copy of claim intimation letter dt. 09-04-2005.
Ex.A10. Office copy of legal notice dt. 17-11-2009.
Ex.A11. Photo copy of reply notice dt. 27-11-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Office copy of letter dt. 29-08-2006 issued by OP1 to complainant.
Ex.B2. Returned cover dt 30-08-2006.
Ex.B3. Photo copy of legal notice dt.17-11-2009.
Ex.B4. Office copy of reply letter dt.27-11-2009.
Ex.B5. Police NO.501602/31/04/6300032002 issued by National Insurance company, Kolkatta.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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 :
