Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/59/2015

Triveni Guptha, W/o. Surya Prakash Guptha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

K.Thimma Reddy

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 10.12.2015

                                                                                                 Order Date:15.07.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.59/2015

 

 

Between

 

Smt. Triveni Guptha,

W/o. Surya Prakash Guptha,

Hindu, aged about 28 years,

Flat No.301, Sri Durga Residency,

Near Indian Bank,

Karakambadi Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

The Divisional Manager,

New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Adithya Towers,

Balaji Colony,

Tirupati.                                                                                             …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 17.06.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.Thimma Reddy, counsel for complainant, and Sri.Gotti Gajendra, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections - 12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay the insurance amount of Rs.9,40,055/- proportionate RC amount of Rs.1,10,833/-, Rs.60,000/- spent for conveyance and the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant, 2) to award Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, 3) to direct the opposite party to pay the costs of the litigation.  

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant is absolute owner of the car (Ford / Eco Sport) bearing No.AP-03-BP-5589. She has insured the said vehicle with the opposite party under policy No.61270031140300007608. It was in force from 15.01.2015 to 14.01.2016. The vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs.9,40,055/- and she paid Rs.1,18,750/- towards life tax for 15 years.

            3.  On 11.09.2015 at about 9.30 a.m., the vehicle met with an accident near Boyapalli cross, Kalikiri mandal. In this regard, a case in crime No.138/2015 under Section-184(b) read with Section-177 of M.V.Act, was registered in Kalikiri P.S., and collected fine of Rs.1,000/- from the driver of the complainant and passed on receipt bearing No.236171. Immediately, after the accident it was informed to the opposite party, who inturn appointed its surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and estimated the damage caused to the vehicle. The officials of the opposite party directed the complainant to handover the vehicle along with R.C., then only they will pay Rs.9,40,055/-, but as per the rules and regulations of the policy, the opposite party has to pay the amount for which amount the complainant insured her vehicle with the opposite party. In case of handing over of the vehicle, the opposite party has to pay the above said amount along with R.C.amount of Rs.1,18,750/- paid by the complainant towards life tax for 15 years after deducting proportionate amount for one year, but opposite party did not agree for the same. Even according to RTA rules, the complainant is entitled to the cost of the vehicle insured.

            4.  As the opposite party did not pay the insurance amount inspite of several representations, the complainant being business person, incurred Rs.60,000/- to meet her business works at Kolar, Chintamani, Chennai and Vijayawada, by hiring private vehicles. The opposite party bound to pay the said amount. The acts of the opposite party are nothing but deficiency in service, for which opposite party is to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages. The opposite party has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, on 25.11.2015, the complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the opposite party to comply with the demands of the complainant. The opposite party acknowledged the notice and sent e-mail to the complainant on 02.12.2015 with false allegations. Hence the complaint.

            5.  The opposite party filed its written version denying para wise allegations in the complaint. The opposite party admitted the accident, damages to the vehicle and  visiting the vehicle by their surveyor and also estimated the damages to the vehicle.

            6.  The opposite party further contended that the complainant has insured the  vehicle with opposite party and the policy was in force by the date of accident. After the surveyor submitted the report, the opposite party company issued letter dt:06.11.2015 stating that with reference to the telephonic talk with the complainant, as in principle, the competent authority has approved the claim for Rs.5,39,000/- subject to collection of consent letter from the complainant and that the damaged wreck was offered for Rs.4,00,000/- with R.C. by Hyderabad buyer by name Mr.Farhan (Mobile No.09059991994) and requested the complainant to give unconditional consent letter for accepting the claim for Rs.5,39,000/-, to enable the opposite party to forward the claim file for final approval by the competent authority and also requested to submit consent letter immediately to enable the opposite party to forward the file to Regional Office of the opposite party for getting approval. But the complainant has not given consent letter. Even subsequently also opposite party telephoned several times to settle the claim by producing R.C. to opposite party, but the complainant did not turn-up. The complainant wants to refund life tax amount of Rs.1,18,750/-, which is not within the purview of the opposite party. That the vehicle was insured with opposite party for Rs.9,40,055/-, which is the cost of the vehicle. Opposite party is liable only for the said amount subject to salvage, deductions etc. Opposite party is not liable to pay life tax, which was paid to the R.T.O., Tirupati, and the policy also not covered the said amount. As per the surveyor report 3 types of assessments were made i.e. 1) on total loss basis, 2) on net of salvage loss basis and 3) repair basis. On repair basis a sum of Rs.8,07,615 minus policy excess plus taxes. On total loss basis Rs.6,60,9055/- less policy excess of Rs.1,000/-. On net of salvage loss basis Rs.5,40,055/- less compulsory policy excess of Rs.1,000/-. That the complainant – insured, if wants to settle the claim on total loss basis, the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.9,40,055 - Rs.1,000 and thereby net amount of Rs.9,39,055/-. If the complainant wants to settle the claim on salvage value basis, she is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.9,40,055 – wreck value of Rs.4,00,000 – Rs.1,000, net amount comes to Rs.5,39,055/- and the R.C. book and wreck will be surrendered to the buyer, who has given willingness to take away the wreck for Rs.4,00,000/-. For the above said two types of settlements, the complainant has to give his written unconditional letter to the insurer i.e. opposite party before settlement of claim. Under IDV concept, the complainant entitled to receive IDV value only i.e. Rs.9,40,055 – Rs.1000, comes to Rs.9,39,055/- beyond that the insurers are not liable to pay any compensation. Inspite of best efforts made by the opposite party, the complainant did not come forward for settlement of the claim. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There is no cause of action. Complaint is barred by limitation. Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.      

            7. Complainant filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On the other hand, opposite party filed chief affidavit as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments and advanced oral arguments.

            8.  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?

            9. Point No.(i):-  To answer this point, it is pertinent to mention that the date of accident is 11.09.2015 at about 9.30 a.m., date of complaint is 10.12.2015. Thus the complaint is filed within 3 months from the date of accident (cause of action). Therefore, the question of limitation does not arise, as the complaint is filed well within the time. Admittedly, the car is brand new as per Exs.A2 and B1 (policy copies). Complainant’s case is that she has insured the vehicle Ford / Eco Sport bearing registration No.AP-03-BP-5589 under policy No.61270031140300007608, policy is for one year from 15.01.2015 to 14.01.2016. Complainant paid Rs.1,18,750/- towards life tax for 15 years. The car met with accident on 11.09.2015 at about 9.30 a.m. near Boyapalli cross, Kalikiri mandal. Immediately she informed the police and opposite party about the accident. Kalakiri police also registered a case in Crime No.138/2015 under Section 184(b) r/w Section.177 of M.V.Act, and the opposite party appointed its surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and filed his report assessing the value of damage. All these facts are admitted facts. The dispute is with regard to claim amount. Complainant is claiming the insured amount of Rs.9,40,055/-, which is the cost of the car, she is also paid a premium of Rs.39,595/-. In detail net premium is Rs.35,239 – service tax Rs.4,356/-, total payable is Rs.39,595/-. Policy is termed as “Private Car Enhancement Cover Policy”. Own Damage Premium is Rs.33,757/-, T.P. Premium is Rs.1482, total is Rs.35,239/- referred to above as net premium, liability of the opposite party a) Basic TP Cover, b) Compulsory PA cover for owner, c) Driver / LL cover for other employees. The total value of the policy thus comes to Rs.9,40,055/-. Even according to the policy, it is new vehicle and CSI opted (capital sum insured is opted). Therefore, when the complainant insured the car Ford/Eco Sport for Rs.9,40,055/- and opted CSI and paid the premium of Rs.39,595/-, the opposite party is bound to pay the said policy amount / insured amount under IDV claim i.e. Insured’s Declared Value, in case of any damage to the vehicle. As per surveyor report under Ex.B2 total value for the car repair exceeds the car value. The complainant is not claiming such amount beyond the value insured. According to opposite party one person by name Mr.Farhan, offered Rs.4,00,000/- to the wreck, whom it has to be paid, necessarily that should go to the complainant, in such circumstances why the opposite parties are deducting the wreck value from the cost of the vehicle or insured amount under salvage value basis. In this type of assessment, the surveyor of the opposite party stated that the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.9,40,055 – wreck value of Rs.4,00,000 – Rs.1,000/-. When the wreck values for Rs.4,00,000/-, it should not have been deducted from the insured amount, though it was paid by some third party by taking away the wreck, that amount should reach the complainant / insured. Under IDV concept, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.9,40,055 – Rs.1,000 i.e. Rs.9,39,055/-. As per para.14 of written version and para.6 of the chief affidavit filed by the opposite party and the admitted facts in  written version and chief affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.9,39,055/-. The complainant has insured the car under IDV value and opted for CSI. So under these specific admissions, the opposite party is bound to pay the policy amount of Rs.9,39,055/- to the complainant, but the opposite party giving so many reasons and reducing the wreck value etc. and offered a sum of Rs.5,39,055/- to the complainant, which is quite contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, as it has not accepted to pay the policy amount of Rs.9,40,055 – Rs.1000 compulsory excess policy amount. Therefore, under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly this points is answered.

            10. Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, the claim of the complainant is for Rs.9,40,055/-, which is the cost of the vehicle, for which the vehicle was insured with opposite party and paid a premium of Rs.39,595/- for one year from 15.01.2015 to 14.01.2016. The vehicle is neither an old vehicle nor a second hand vehicle, admittedly it is a new vehicle, even according to Exs.A2 and B1 insurance policy. The vehicle met with an accident on 11.09.2015, but the policy was issued on 29.06.2015. So within 3 or 4 months of issuing the policy, the accident was occurred. The surveyor report at page.2, column.6, the date and time of accident was mentioned as 07.09.2015 at 11.40 p.m., it is incorrect. When the policy is admitted by the opposite party and the vehicle is also admitted as new one, by the opposite party and accident also admitted, the damage was assessed by the surveyor of the opposite party, when the opposite party collected a premium of Rs.39,595/- under IDV concept and CSI was adopted by the complainant, the complainant in our opinion is entitled to the insured amount of Rs.9,40,055 – Rs.1,000 as admitted in para.14 of written version and para.6 of chief affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party. So far as life tax is concerned, the opposite party is in no way concern, as it was paid to R.T.A. So, in our opinion the complainant is not entitled to the life tax. Similarly, since the vehicle was met with an accident unfortunately and sustained damage, it could not be repaired with the cost of the vehicle, the complainant being the business person shall have to move various places on business purpose, for which the opposite party is not liable to meet such expenditure incurred by the complainant. As the opposite party failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in making payment of the insured amount to the complainant and caused mental agony for the complainant, hence the opposite party is also liable to pay the compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant and also costs of the litigation. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            11.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, for which the opposite party has to pay compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant and costs of the litigation and the opposite party is liable to pay the insured amount of Rs.9,40,055 – Rs.1,000 excess policy amount (as mentioned in the policy) and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.9,39,055/- (Rupees nine lakhs thirty nine thousand and fifty five only) towards policy / insured amount to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for causing mental agony to the complainant, and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Rest of the claim is not considered. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.                   

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 15^th day of July, 2016.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-       

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Smt. Triveni Guptha (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1: E. Jayaramaiah (Chief/ Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original R.C. Pertaining to the vehicle bearing registration No. AP 03/BP 5589 in the name of the complainant. Dt: 04.05.2015.
	Insurance policy (Original) in the name of the complainant issued by the Opposite Party.  Period of Cover from Dt: 15.01.2015 to 14.01.2016.
	Photo copy of Certificate issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalikiri P.S. Dt: 11.09.2015.
	Photo copy of Challan issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalikiri P.S. Dt: 11.09.2015.
	Estimation by Raja Sriram Ford Private Limited in the name of the complainant. Dt: 11.09.2015.
	Copies (original) of Transport expenses bill issued by Sri Venkateswara Cabs, Tirupati (6) in the name of the complainant.
	Office copy of the legal notice issued to the Opposite Party by the complainant. Dt: 25.11.2015.
	Postal Acknowledgement.  Dt: 27.11.2015.
	E- Mail copy received from the Opposite Party. Dt: 12.02.2015.
	Computer generated (Photo  copy) copy of the Parking charges letter given by service centre. Dt: 04.04.2016.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Policy (Original) copy along with conditions.  Period from from 15.01.2015 to 14.01.2016.
2.	Surveyor Report (Original) of the Complainant Vehicle. Dt: 21.10.2015.
3.	Letter sent to complainant by the Opposite Party. Dt: 06.11.2015.
4.	Served copy of the notice to the Opposite Party by the Complainant. Dt: 25.11.2015.
5.	Reply notice by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Dt: 02.12.2015.
6.	Postal Acknowledgement for the reply notice. Dt: 25.02.2016.

 

 

                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                    

                                                                                                               President

          

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

               Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

 

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.