Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/49/2014

R.Jayarama Naidu, S/o. R. Peddaiah Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Chevireddy Sreedevi

16 Dec 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:18.09.2014

Order Date: 16.12.2015

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.49/2014

 

 

Between

 

 

R. Jayarama Naidu,

S/o. R. Peddaiah Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 60 years,

D.No.18-8-3/E-5, Madhura Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

The Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Govindarajaswamy North Mada Street,

Tirupati.                                                                                             …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 08.12.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Smt.Chevireddy Sreedevi, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.Gotti Gajendra, counsel for the opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/-,  to pay Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.8,345/- towards damages to the vehicle with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 24.08.2013 till realization, as per the terms of the policy for the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-AT-5013, 2) to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-   that the complainant being the owner of the Honda Activa Motor Cycle, insured with the opposite party under the policy No.552200/31/12/6200006719, for the period from 08.01.2013 to 07.01.2014. The policy covering the risk for own damage, third party liability and for compulsory personal accident, and  to cover owner-cum-driver risk with payment of Rs.1,025/-, which was collected from the complainant. Complainant got valid driving licence.

            3.  Complainant further contended that on 24.08.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. at Thanapalli cross on 150 ft. bypass road, Tirupati, a person riding on Scooty came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the complainant’s vehicle, as a result of which complainant sustained severe head injury. Immediately he was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, for treatment, later he was shifted to Apollo hospital, Chennai, for better treatment and he was discharged on 30.08.2013. His Honda Activa Motor Cycle was badly damaged in the said accident.

            4.  In this regard, a case in Crime No.206/2013 against the rider of the Scooty was registered under Section-337 of IPC, in Tiruchanoor Police Station, later charge sheet was filed under Section-338 IPC, Section-134(a) and (b) of M.V.Act and the same was disposed on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

            5.  That the complainant underwent surgery and spent Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment, medicine and attendant charges. Opposite party is liable to pay damages of Rs.8,345/- for the motor vehicle as well as the medical expenses of the complainant. As the opposite party delayed to settle the claim, complainant caused legal notice on the opposite party on 23.06.2014. Though notice was served on the opposite party, neither the opposite party gave reply nor complied with. Hence the complaint.    

            6.  Opposite party filed its written version, denying paravise allegations in the complaint, except the ownership of the complainant over Honda Activa Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-03-AT-5013 and its insurance with opposite party. Opposite party denied its liability. Opposite party further contended that the complainant never approached the opposite party and he never made any claim against the opposite party except giving notice dt:23.06.2014, which was sent to opposite party on 28.08.2014, served on opposite party on 01.09.2014, and the opposite party gave reply on 22.09.2014. That the complainant did not approach immediately after the accident and did not submit relevant documents. Complainant did not approach the opposite party till today (date of written version on 02.12.2014).

            7.  Even for claiming own damages, the complainant would have informed opposite party about the accident, immediately after the accident occurred. So that, the opposite party would have appointed its surveyor, to assess / estimate the loss / damages. The complainant should have produced all the relevant documents and bills, such as Driving Licence, R.C. along with claim form, bills of damaged parts of the vehicle. Without approaching the opposite party, blaming the opposite party, is not fair on the part of the complainant. Under these circumstances, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

8.  Complainant filed his chief affidavit as P.W.1 and opposite party filed its chief affidavit as R.W.1. Both parties filed their respective written arguments. No documents were marked for the complainant, though some documents were filed in the Forum, whereas Exs.B1 to B5 were marked for the opposite party.

9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

(ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

(iii).  To what relief?

10.  Point No.(i):-  to answer this point, complainant has to plead and prove that he has informed the opposite party about the accident, immediately after the accident was occurred, that he has made his claim within time, that he has  furnished the details of the damage and its value as valued by a qualified / authorized mechanical expert and the details of the spare-parts replaced and its relevant bills, claim application date and the amount claimed etc. particulars. But none of the above details were furnished by the complainant either to the opposite party or submitted the same in the Forum till today. 

11.  Complainant filed a petition in I.A.No.24/2015 dt:11.05.2015, requesting the Forum to re-open the case for marking documents and it was allowed on the same day. But the complainant failed to turn-up and get the documents marked on his behalf. The documents so filed by the complainant are 9 in number, all of them were photo copies, except one document said to have been issued by one Swamy Auto Clinic, Tirupati, which do not contain the seal or designation of the person issued, as such it has no authenticity. However, since the complainant failed to get those documents marked on his behalf, they cannot be taken into consideration.

12.  Nowhere in the complaint or in his evidence affidavit or in his written arguments, the complainant mentioned that he has made claim application before the opposite party and it was repudiated by the opposite party. No claim application is made claiming the benefits under the insurance policy. When no claim is made and when there is no repudiation orders or such claim is pending with opposite party, deficiency in service cannot be attributed to the opposite party.

13. The accident was occurred on 24.08.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. The complainant got issued notice to the opposite party on 23.06.2014 (according to complainant), that is nearly one year after the accident. Opposite party contending that the said notice dt:23.06.2014 was sent to the opposite party on 28.08.2014 and it was served on the opposite party on 01.09.2014, that the opposite party has given reply on 22.09.2014, these facts were not denied by the complainant. When the accident was occurred on 24.08.2013, notice was served on the opposite party on 01.09.2014 i.e. more than one year after the accident. When the complainant was discharged from Apollo hospital, Chennai, on 30.08.2013, what made him not to prefer claim application till more than one year or even till today? and what made him not to issue notice informing the accident atleast after he has been discharged from the hospital, to the opposite party? The complainant also did not mention the result of the case in Crime No.206/2013. He failed to furnish the case number in connection with the Crime No.206/2013, charge sheet filed under Section-338 IPC. Simply it was mentioned that the said case was disposed-off on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. That apart, he has not mentioned anywhere in his complaint, chief affidavit and written arguments that he has not filed any other case in connection with the accident before any other Forum, since he has not filed any of the original documents in this Forum, his bona fides are to be suspected.   

14.  In the absence of any claim application by the complainant to the opposite party in pursuance of the insurance policy and in the absence of any such repudiation of the claim by the opposite party, and the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, this point is answered.

15.  Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that since the complainant failed to mention that he has presented the claim application before the opposite party, claiming the damages or the compensation for his personal injuries as well as the damages that were caused to his motorcycle, his claim cannot be sustained on the alleged ground of deficiency in service, on the part of opposite party, as was held in point No.1. As there is no claim application from the complainant and he has also failed to prove that he has made such claim application before the opposite party, and as there was no repudiation from the opposite party, on this ground also, the claim of the complainant cannot be sustained. Necessarily, there should be claim application presented by the complainant to the opposite party and there should be repudiation or such claim application is pending for long period or some orders against the complainant in respect of such claim made by the complainant, otherwise, deficiency in service cannot be attributed to the opposite party. That apart, the complainant failed to file any original document in support of his case. Though he has filed as many as    9 documents (photocopies), the complainant could not made any efforts to get those documents marked on his behalf. So, it can be safely held that there is no evidence in proof of complaint allegations. Complainant failed to inform about the accident to the opposite party within stipulated time or on any subsequent date immediately after the accident, except notice dt:23.06.2014 i.e. about one year after the accident. So, there are latches on the part of complainant. Under those circumstances and in the absence of any claim application from the complainant and also in the absence of repudiation orders from the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

16.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for, as such, the complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismised.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. 

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 16^th day of December, 2015.

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                             

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

P.W.1:   R.Jaya Rama Naidu  (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

R.W-1:  Somla Naik (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANANT

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	True copy of the policy under policy No. 552200/31/12/6200006719 valid from Dt: 08.01.2013 to 07.01.2014.
2.	Office copy of the notice  issued by the complaint to the opposite party Dt: 23.06.2014
3.	Office copy of the Reply Notice on behalf of the opposite part. Dt: 22.09.2014.
4.	Postal Acknowledgement of the Complainant Advocate.
5.	Policy conditions of the Two Wheeler Package Policy.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                                         President

            

           // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                       2. The opposite party.