BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 30th day of January, 2015
C.C.No.84/2014
Between:
B.V.Naganjaneylu,
S/o Papa Rayudu,
Aged about 47 Years,
R/o H.No.8/3/70,
Allagadda Town-518 543,
Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
The Divisional Manger,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office,
D.No.40-344, 1st Floor,
Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar,
Kurnool-518 001. …OPPOSITE PARTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.V.Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri.P.Sunkanna, Advocate for opposite part and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, President,)
C.C. No.84/2014
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
(a)To direct the opposite party to pay the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant.
(b)To grant interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of accident till the realization.
(c)To grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental worry.
(d)To grant costs of the complaint.
(e)To grant such other relief as the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. The facts of the complainant in brief run as follows:- The complainant is owner of Mahindra Xylo Vehicle bearing No.AP21 AB 4977. He insured the same with the opposite party under policy No.552300/31/13/6100000456. The policy is come into force with effect from 07-05-2013 to 06-05-2014 midnight.
On 27-09-2013 when the said vehicle was going from Sirivella to Suddapalli Village to drop the defacto complainant and 6 others who are known persons to the complainant, when it reached near Gangula Thimma Reddy College after crossing the Venkatapuram Village, at about 7.30 P.M. the driver of the said vehicle drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against auto, which was coming in opposite direction. As a result the vehicle bearing No.AP21 AB 4977 turned turtitle and the vehicle badly damaged. One of the inmates died and others received injuries.
The complainant informed to the opposite party about the accident and damage caused to his vehicle. Opposite party sent the independent surveyor to the accident spot. The said surveyor assessed the loss caused to the accident vehicle. Copy of the report of the independent surveyor was given to the opposite party. The complainant shifted the accident vehicle to Krishna Motors, Kurnool for repairs. They estimated cost of the repair at Rs.7,48,603/-. The accident vehicle is still in the work shop as the estimated amount is more than the present value of the vehicle.
The complainant insured his vehicle for total value of Rs.3,00,000/-. The opposite party collected the premium for Rs.3,00,000/- only. Hence the complainant is restricting his claim to Rs.3,00,000/- only as he paid premium for total value of Rs.3,00,000/- only.
The complainant has been corresponding with the opposite party to settle the claim amount. But on 15-04-2014 the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant repudiating his claim on the ground “there is violation of seating capacity in the vehicle at the time of accident”. The allegation of the opposite party is false and it is not correct. The repudiation made by the opposite party is not correct. Hence he prays to allow the CC and to pass an order in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party by directing to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant, to grant interest at 24% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realization and to award compensation of rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and also the costs of this CC.
3. On service of notice, the opposite party engaged the counsel and filed written version, which runs into 3 pages. The contentions of the written version in brief run as follows. The vehicle bearing No.AP21 AB 4977 was insured with them. Issuing of the policy in favour of the complainant and its validity by the date of accident are admitted. They expressed their ignorance with regard the accident alleged to have been taken place on 25-09-2013 to the vehicle bearing No.AP21 AB 4977 for want of knowledge. They further stated the complainant has to strict prove when the damaged vehicle was shifted to Krishna Motors at Kurnool, its assessment at Rs.7,48,603/- etc for repairs. The complainant has to strictly prove about the legal notice issued by him and also the claim made by him at Rs.3,00,000/-.
The insured vehicle is a private car but not the passenger vehicle. The policy issued by the complainant clearly discloses under the head limitations as to use the insured vehicle and if shall not be used for hire or reward or organized racing or speed testing or reliability trails etc.
The seating capacity of the vehicle was 8 only inclusive of the driver. But more than 10 persons were travelling in the accident vehicle at the time of accident. The independent surveyor who visited the accident spot clearly stated there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy and hence the claim of the complainant shall be repudiated. Basing on the surveyors report only the repudiation letter was sent to the complainant. Hence he prays to dismiss the CC with costs.
4. The complainant filed sworn affidavit in support of his contention and also marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and third party affidavit of S.Suban Vali, S/o S.Dastagiri, aged about 24 years, R/o Suddapalli Village, Peddamudian Mandal, Kadapa District is filed. The opposite party submitted sworn affidavit of S.V.Durga Prasad, S/o S.Subba Rao, aged about 51 Years, working as Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool in support of his contention and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.
5. Both parties submitted written and oral arguments in support of their respective contentions.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in settling the claim of the complaint?
- If so? To what relief the complainant is entitled?
7. POINT No.i:- In support of the contention of the complainant, he filed his sworn affidavit and also marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. Ex.A1 is the Repudiation Letter dated 15-04-2014, Ex.A2 is the photo copy of Estimation bill for the repairs issued by Krishna Motors, Kurnool for Rs.7,48,603/-, Ex.A3 is the photo copy of Registration Certificate of Xylo AP21 AB 4977, Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Insurance Policy bearing No.552311/31/13/6100000456, Ex.A5 is the Bunch of Digital photos of damaged vehicle (Nos.4), Ex.A6 is the photo copy of FIR in Crime No.137/2013 of Sivivella Police Station. On behalf of the opposite party Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool filed sworn affidavit and also marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.
Ownership of the vehicle, premium collected by the opposite party, the policy issued by them in favour of the complainant under Ex.A4 are not in dispute. As per Ex.A4 the policy came into force on the midnight 07-05-2013 and till end 0.00 hours of 06-05-2014. Accident occurred on 27-09-2013 at 7.30 P.M. near Gangula Thimma Reddy College. The sole ground on which the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party is, violation of seating capacity in the vehicle which met with an accident. As per Ex.A3 Registration Certificate, Xylo vehicle No.AP21 AB 4977. Its seating capacity 8. Immediately after the accident one of the person who was travelling in the vehicle, who sustained injuries in the accident, gave report to the police. They registered a case in Crime No.137/2013 on the file of Sirivella Police Station. The copy of F.I.R. is marked as Ex.A6. A perusal of Ex.A6 discloses 8 persons only were traveling in the accident vehicle when it met with an accident including driver. But according to the opposite party more than 10 persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident. To prove the same apart from examining the Senior Manager, they are relaying on Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. The counsel for opposite party draws our attention to the contents of the charge sheet which is marked as Ex.B2. He says Lw.1 to Lw.10 were cited as witness to speak about the witnessing of the accident and receiving of injuries. Hence there were more than 10 persons in the accident vehicle at the time of accident according to the opposite party. But a perusal of Ex.B2 shows Lws 3 to 6, 9 and 10 and the deceased Shaik Athar Rasool Bee were in Xylo vehicle bearing No.AP21 AB 4977 apart from the driver. At page No.2 of Ex.B2 they have clearly mentioned auto driver Inayathullah and one Mohammed Ghouse also sustained injuries. These two persons were not in the accident vehicle at the time of the accident. They sustained injuries when the Xylo vehicle hit the auto, in which they were travelling. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party all the injured who were cited as witnesses in the charge sheet were travelling in the accident vehicle is not correct. Inayathullah and Mohammed Ghouse though they are Muslims they were not travelling in the accident vehicle at the time of accident. But they were travelling in the auto as driver and passengers. Hence repudiation letter sent by the opposite party under Ex.A1 is not correct. They have created in a flimsy ground and sent repudiation letter by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in settling the claim of the complainant. They have repudiated the claim of the complainant without any valid reason. Hence we hold this point in favour of complainant and against opposite party.
8. POINT No.ii:- The complainant insured his vehicle with the opposite party for Rs.3,00,000/-. The estimation made by the Krishan Motors, Kurnool by assessing the damage caused to the accident vehicle was at Rs.7,48,603/-. As the amount covered under Ex.A4 is far less than the amount required to effect repairs to the accident vehicle, the complainant could not get it repaired so far. Hence we feel it is appropriate to direct the opposite party to pay the entire amount for which the vehicle was insured by collecting premium of Rs.7,500/-. Hence we direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant i.e., the amount covered under Ex.A4 for which the complainant paid requisite premium. We direct to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant due to unlawful rejection of his claim by the opposite party. We also direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this CC.
9. In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed, and we direct the opposite party to pay
1. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- the amount covered under Ex.A4 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of repudiation letter i.e., Ex.A1 till the date of realization,
2. A sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for the sufferance of mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this CC.
We direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount as directed above within one month from today failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order and realize the same by proceeding against opposite party according to law .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of January, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite party : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Repudiation Letter dated 15-04-2014.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Estimation bill for the repairs issued by Krishna
Motors, Kurnool for Rs.7,48,603/-.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Registration Certificate of Xylo AP21 AB 4977.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Insurance Policy No.552300/31/13/6100000456.
Ex.A5 Bunch of Digital Photos of damaged Xylo Vehicle number in 4
Ex.A6 Photo copy of FIR in Crime No.137/2013 of Sirivella Police
Station.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of FIR in Crime No.137/2013 of Sirivella Police
Station.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.B3 Policy along with terms and conditions.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY 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 :
