The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai V/S Mohammed Nazeer.K. S/o. Khadar Sab, Tq. Manvi - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/19

Mohammed Nazeer.K. S/o. Khadar Sab, Tq. Manvi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. G.R. Ashok

13 May 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/19

Mohammed Nazeer.K. S/o. Khadar Sab, Tq. Manvi						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Mohammed Nazir K. against the two Respondents. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the owner of Lorry bearing No. MH 04/H 3719 same was purchased with the financial assistance by Shriram Transport Finance Company under Hypothecation Agreement for eaking his livelihood out of earnings from the said vehicle. The complainant has insured his vehicle with the Respondents Insurance Company under Policy No. 412000/31/2007/19669 having validity from 12-01-07 to 11-01-08. The Respondent No-2 is one of the Branch Office of Respondent No-1 at Raichur. On 05-01-08 at about 3-30 a.m. near Ashok Siddapur gate on SH 19 Road while preceding towards Chellikere the above said lorry met with an accident. The complainant regarding the said accident was registered with the Rampur PS of Chitradurga District and same was intimated to the Respondents over phone by the complainant. The Respondent arranged for survey of damages to the lorry accordingly the surveyor of the Respondents Company conducted survey but the copy of the survey report was not submitted to the complainant. After the intimation to the Respondents the complainant towed the vehicle to Raichur and got repaired the same by spending Rs. 1,30,875/- through Bharat Lorry Body Builder, Raichur. After the accident the complainant completed all formalities to claim insurance from Respondents and submitted claims form along with bills on 15-10-09 to Respondent No-1 with due intimation to Respondent No-2. The complainant repeatedly requested the Respondents to reimburse the repair expenses. But the Respondents even inspite of after receipt of the final survey of vehicle by their surveyor dragged on the matter on one or the other pretext. Many times the complainant made repeated requests to settle his claim but went in vain. Finally he got issued a legal notice dt. 13-10-09 against the Respondents for which the Respondent No-1 replied through claim repudiation letter dt. 21-10-09 for the reasons stated therein. Even in spite of several requests the Respondents did not settle the claim. So there is deficiency of service, and unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the Respondents for not satisfying the loss incurred by him. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction against Respondents to pay Rs. 1,30,875/- along with interest and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of proceedings and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for loss of earnings and mental harassment. 2. The Respondents 1 & 2 have not even inspite of service of the notice from this Forum and hence they have placed Ex-parte vide order dt. 23-04-10. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-23. 4. Heard the arguments of the complainant side and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant Mohammed Nazeer is the owner of Lorry bearing No. MH-04/H-3719 same was purchased with the financial assistance by Sriram Transport Finance Company under hypothecation agreement and got insured with the Respondents Insurance Company. Further it is also not in disputing that vehicle was met with an accident on time and date specified in Para-3 of the complaint and vehicle was damaged and claim was not settled. 7. The complainant has filed in all (23) documents namely (1) CC of FIR with complainant marked at Ex. P-1, (2) CC of charge sheet marked at Ex.P-2, (3) CC of spot panchanama marked at Ex.P-3, (4) CC of MV Report marked at Ex.P-4, (5) True copy of Insurance Policy marked at Ex.P-5, and Schedule of premium at Ex.P-5(1), (6) The Goods Carriage Permit marked at Ex.P-6, (7) Copy of RC Book marked at Ex.P-7, (8) copy of legal notice dt. 13-10-09 marked at Ex.P-8, (9) Repudiation letter dt. 21-10-09 marked at Ex.P-9, (10) Acknowledgment for having sent all the original bills to the Respondents Company marked at Ex.P-10, (11) Copy of the estimate marked at Ex.P-11 and copies of bills twelve in numbers marked at Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-23. 8. It is the case of the complainant that, his vehicle was met with an accident on 05-01-08 at about 3-30 AM near Ashoka Siddapur Gate on SH 19 Road while proceeding towards Chellikere and immediately after the accident he was informed the Respondents, the Respondents have sent the surveyor accordingly survey report has been submitted by the Respondents but even inspite of survey and the documents submitted by the complainant the Respondents have not settled the claim for no reasons. 9. From perusal of the Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 it is very clear that, the vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident on time and date specifically mentioned in the complainant. From the perusal of Ex.P-7 it is very clear that, the complainant is the registered owner vehicle bearing No. MH-04/H-2719. From the perusal of Ex.P-10 it is very clear that, the complainant has sent documents and claim forms to the Respondents on 15-10-09 itself. Under the above circumstances there is no any ambiguity or doubt in the mind of this Forum to say that, the complainants vehicle had met with an accident and same has been informed to the Respondents. The Respondent Insurance Company in its letter dt. 21-10-09 which is marked at Ex.P-9 contended that, the complainant has not submitted the documents concerned to the vehicle and accident is concerned and for that reason the claim has been repudiated. But the contents of the this Ex.P-9 are clearly goes to show that they are false and baseless because the Ex.P-10 clearly speaks that, they have received all the documents what they have expected from the complainant in order to settle the claim. Under such circumstances the contention of the Respondent to repudiate the claim through Ex.P-9 is nothing but to avoid the claim of the complainant and to harass him as contended by the complainant. Further it is also clearly goes to show that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Though the Respondents not appeared before this Forum and placed Ex-parte who have considered the case on merit and documents submitted by the complainant and on that basis we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has proved his case against the Respondents. Hence we answered Point No- 1 in Affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 1,30,875/- along with interest and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the litigation and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for loss of earnings. The complainant has submitted bills to the tune of Rs. 1,16,450/- under Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-23 in respect of repairs and transportation charges and also submitted estimation under Ex.P-11. On perusal of Ex.P-11 it appears that it is an only estimation issued by one Bharat Lorry Body Builder Raichur. Hence we have not considered the estimation but we have considered bills produced under Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-23. The Respondents as per the complaint version through they have got surveyed the vehicle through their surveyor they have not stated what was the actual loss caused to the vehicle in their repudiation letter and they have also not challenged the claim of the complainant either by appearing before this Forum or by any documents. Under such circumstances there is no other go to hold that the complainant has spent for his vehicle with the amount what he has submitted under Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-23 to the tune of Rs. 1,16,450/-. Hence we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to claim to the tune of Rs. 1,16,450/- only towards the damage of the vehicle and not as Rs. 1,30,875/-. As regards to the claim of interest by the complainant is concerned, we have taken into consideration of the entire case of the complainant and the loss sustained by him due to the accident, we are of the view that granting interest at the rate of 9% p.a. is the reasonable rate of interest. With regard to the loss of earning and compensation for mental harassment is concerned, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he was sustained such loss due to the accident and deficiency in service by the Respondents hence it is not granted; accordingly we answered Point No-2. 11. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, as such we have granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- recoverable by the complainant from the Respondents under the head of deficiency in service, As regards to the cost of litigation is concerned, the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation 12. In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost against Respondents. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 1,21,450/- from the Respondents. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 1,21,450/- from the date of the judgement till realization of the full amount. The Respondents has to comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 13-05-10.) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Mohammed Nazir K. against the two Respondents. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the owner of Lorry bearing No. MH 04/H 3719 same was purchased with the financial assistance by Shriram Transport Finance Company under Hypothecation Agreement for eaking his livelihood out of earnings from the said vehicle. The complainant has insured his vehicle with the Respondents Insurance Company under Policy No. 412000/31/2007/19669 having validity from 12-01-07 to 11-01-08. The Respondent No-2 is one of the Branch Office of Respondent No-1 at Raichur. On 05-01-08 at about 3-30 a.m. near Ashok Siddapur gate on SH 19 Road while preceding towards Chellikere the above said lorry met with an accident. The complainant regarding the said accident was registered with the Rampur PS of Chitradurga District and same was intimated to the Respondents over phone by the complainant. The Respondent arranged for survey of damages to the lorry accordingly the surveyor of the Respondents Company conducted survey but the copy of the survey report was not submitted to the complainant. After the intimation to the Respondents the complainant towed the vehicle to Raichur and got repaired the same by spending Rs. 1,30,875/- through Bharat Lorry Body Builder, Raichur. After the accident the complainant completed all formalities to claim insurance from Respondents and submitted claims form along with bills on 15-10-09 to Respondent No-1 with due intimation to Respondent No-2. The complainant repeatedly requested the Respondents to reimburse the repair expenses. But the Respondents even inspite of after receipt of the final survey of vehicle by their surveyor dragged on the matter on one or the other pretext. Many times the complainant made repeated requests to settle his claim but went in vain. Finally he got issued a legal notice dt. 13-10-09 against the Respondents for which the Respondent No-1 replied through claim repudiation letter dt. 21-10-09 for the reasons stated therein. Even in spite of several requests the Respondents did not settle the claim. So there is deficiency of service, and unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the Respondents for not satisfying the loss incurred by him. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction against Respondents to pay Rs. 1,30,875/- along with interest and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of proceedings and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for loss of earnings and mental harassment. 2. The Respondents 1 & 2 have not even inspite of service of the notice from this Forum and hence they have placed Ex-parte vide order dt. 23-04-10. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-23. 4. Heard the arguments of the complainant side and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant Mohammed Nazeer is the owner of Lorry bearing No. MH-04/H-3719 same was purchased with the financial assistance by Sriram Transport Finance Company under hypothecation agreement and got insured with the Respondents Insurance Company. Further it is also not in disputing that vehicle was met with an accident on time and date specified in Para-3 of the complaint and vehicle was damaged and claim was not settled. 7. The complainant has filed in all (23) documents namely (1) CC of FIR with complainant marked at Ex. P-1, (2) CC of charge sheet marked at Ex.P-2, (3) CC of spot panchanama marked at Ex.P-3, (4) CC of MV Report marked at Ex.P-4, (5) True copy of Insurance Policy marked at Ex.P-5, and Schedule of premium at Ex.P-5(1), (6) The Goods Carriage Permit marked at Ex.P-6, (7) Copy of RC Book marked at Ex.P-7, (8) copy of legal notice dt. 13-10-09 marked at Ex.P-8, (9) Repudiation letter dt. 21-10-09 marked at Ex.P-9, (10) Acknowledgment for having sent all the original bills to the Respondents Company marked at Ex.P-10, (11) Copy of the estimate marked at Ex.P-11 and copies of bills twelve in numbers marked at Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-23. 8. It is the case of the complainant that, his vehicle was met with an accident on 05-01-08 at about 3-30 AM near Ashoka Siddapur Gate on SH 19 Road while proceeding towards Chellikere and immediately after the accident he was informed the Respondents, the Respondents have sent the surveyor accordingly survey report has been submitted by the Respondents but even inspite of survey and the documents submitted by the complainant the Respondents have not settled the claim for no reasons. 9. From perusal of the Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 it is very clear that, the vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident on time and date specifically mentioned in the complainant. From the perusal of Ex.P-7 it is very clear that, the complainant is the registered owner vehicle bearing No. MH-04/H-2719. From the perusal of Ex.P-10 it is very clear that, the complainant has sent documents and claim forms to the Respondents on 15-10-09 itself. Under the above circumstances there is no any ambiguity or doubt in the mind of this Forum to say that, the complainants vehicle had met with an accident and same has been informed to the Respondents. The Respondent Insurance Company in its letter dt. 21-10-09 which is marked at Ex.P-9 contended that, the complainant has not submitted the documents concerned to the vehicle and accident is concerned and for that reason the claim has been repudiated. But the contents of the this Ex.P-9 are clearly goes to show that they are false and baseless because the Ex.P-10 clearly speaks that, they have received all the documents what they have expected from the complainant in order to settle the claim. Under such circumstances the contention of the Respondent to repudiate the claim through Ex.P-9 is nothing but to avoid the claim of the complainant and to harass him as contended by the complainant. Further it is also clearly goes to show that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Though the Respondents not appeared before this Forum and placed Ex-parte who have considered the case on merit and documents submitted by the complainant and on that basis we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has proved his case against the Respondents. Hence we answered Point No- 1 in Affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 1,30,875/- along with interest and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the litigation and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for loss of earnings. The complainant has submitted bills to the tune of Rs. 1,16,450/- under Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-23 in respect of repairs and transportation charges and also submitted estimation under Ex.P-11. On perusal of Ex.P-11 it appears that it is an only estimation issued by one Bharat Lorry Body Builder Raichur. Hence we have not considered the estimation but we have considered bills produced under Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-23. The Respondents as per the complaint version through they have got surveyed the vehicle through their surveyor they have not stated what was the actual loss caused to the vehicle in their repudiation letter and they have also not challenged the claim of the complainant either by appearing before this Forum or by any documents. Under such circumstances there is no other go to hold that the complainant has spent for his vehicle with the amount what he has submitted under Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-23 to the tune of Rs. 1,16,450/-. Hence we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to claim to the tune of Rs. 1,16,450/- only towards the damage of the vehicle and not as Rs. 1,30,875/-. As regards to the claim of interest by the complainant is concerned, we have taken into consideration of the entire case of the complainant and the loss sustained by him due to the accident, we are of the view that granting interest at the rate of 9% p.a. is the reasonable rate of interest. With regard to the loss of earning and compensation for mental harassment is concerned, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he was sustained such loss due to the accident and deficiency in service by the Respondents hence it is not granted; accordingly we answered Point No-2. 11. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, as such we have granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- recoverable by the complainant from the Respondents under the head of deficiency in service, As regards to the cost of litigation is concerned, the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation 12. In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost against Respondents. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 1,21,450/- from the Respondents. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 1,21,450/- from the date of the judgement till realization of the full amount. The Respondents has to comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 13-05-10.) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.