The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. V/S Shekarappa S/o Sharanappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/7

Shekarappa S/o Sharanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

T.M.Swamy

16 Nov 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/7

Shekarappa S/o Sharanappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. The Branch Manager						...........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 Shekarppa against the three Respondents. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the owner of TATA Lorry bearing No. AP-21/T-5999 same was purchased with the financial assistance by Respondent No-3. The Respondent No-1 is Insurance Company by which the complainant has insured his vehicle under Policy No. 411300/31/2008/4468 having validity from 28-06-07 to 27-06-08. The Respondent No-2 is one of its Branch Office at Raichur. On 05-04-08 during the night hours at abut 1-00 a.m. when the lorry was transporting ground nut bags from Shorapur to Chennarayakote, near Halegolapalli village met with an accident by falling into the ditch when the lorry driver Mr. Yellappa lost his control over the vehicle. In the said accident one Basavaraj has lost his life and driver of the lorry was sustained with grievous injuries. The said accident was registered at Lingasugur Police Station by the cleaner of the lorry by name Bheemaraya. The case was registered in Crime No.32/08 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 by name Joshi Druvakumar, Raichur conducted survey and he submitted his report on 06-06-08 about the damage of the vehicle. After the intimation to the Respondents the complainant got repaired his vehicle at Mohd. Shaik Hussain. Lorry Body Builder, Raichur by spending more than Rs. 1,60,000/-. After the accident the complainant completed all formalities to claim insurance from Respondent 1 & 2 and submitted all documents along with claim form and original bills of repair on 06-06-08 through his financier i.e, Respondent No-3. The complainant repeatedly requested the Respondents to reimburse the repair expenses. But the Respondents 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. 17-12-08 against the Respondents calling upon to pay the vehicle damages amount within (15) days. Even in spite of that the Respondents did not settle the claim without any valid reasons and not replied to the said notice. 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. 1,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 06-06-08 to till realization and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. The Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and have filed their written statement. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 have filed their common written statement contending that the complainant has no direct dealing with this Respondents 1 & 2. The Respondent No-3 i.e, Sriram Finance is having contact with the present Respondents, hence they have informed to the Respondent No-3 to submit the documents of DL, Trips sheet, Cash bills, for various items for which the Respondent No-3 has not submitted the same, the said documents are material for verification and to arrive conclusion of authentication. Further it is contended that the complainant is having transaction with Respondent No-3 and in turn the said finance having dealing and transaction with Respondent No- 1 & 2. In view of the same the complainant if at all entitled for any amount he has get it from Respondent No-3. There is no any transaction, correspondence binding in between the complainant and the present Respondents, as such the liability and responsibility on the part of the present Respondents does not arise at all and they have also no knowledge of any liability or responsibility about the claim of the complainant as no transaction or correspondence of what so ever took place between the complainant and the Respondent and sought for dismissal of the complaint against them. 3. The complainant has impleaded the Respondent No-3 as party to the proceedings during the course of enquiry. The Respondent No-3 has filed his written version contending that the complainant has availed the loan from the present Respondent by executing hypothecation agreement to purchase the vehicle in question for transportation business to ply it for commercial purposes. Hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. The dispute raised by the complainant cannot be adjudicated by this Forum. Further it is contended that the present Respondent has submitted all the documents which are furnished by the complainant to the Respondent No-1 for settlement of his claim. The Respondent No-1 & 2 in turn intimated the complainant to produce spot, final, RI, CF, EST, verified documents RC, FC, Permit, parts verified by the surveyor, bills, driving licence and trip sheet along with NOC but the complainant has neglected to produce the said documents for issuing the cheques in favour of the financier but due to the negligence of the complainant himself the claim is not yet settled.. Even now also the present Respondent is ready to co-operate in getting the claim from the Respondent No-1 & 2, if the complainant fulfil all the requirements. Therefore there is no deficiency in the service on the part of the Respondent and sought for dismissal of the complaint. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (10) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-10. In-rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-2 by way of examination-in-chief of U. Jayaram Branch Manager; Similarly the Respondent No-3 has filed sworn affidavit of A. Srinivasalu, Branch Manager, M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Adoni. No documents were got marked on behalf of Respondents as no documents were produced. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant is not a consumer as contended by Respondent No-3.? 2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. In affirmative against Respondent No- 1 & 2 and in negative against Respondent No-3. 3. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that the complainant Shekarappa is the owner of TATA Lorry bearing No. AP-21/T-5999 same was purchased with the financial assistance by Respondent No-3. The Respondent No-1 is Insurance Company by which the complainant has insured his vehicle under Policy No. 411300/31/2008/4468 having validity from 28-06-07 to 27-06-08. The Respondent No-2 is one of its Branch Office at Raichur. On 05-04-08 during the night hours at about 1-00 a.m. the lorry met with an accident by falling into the ditch when the lorry driver Mr. Yellappa lost his control over the vehicle. The said accident was registered at Lingasugur Police Station by the cleaner of the lorry by name Bheemarayya. The case was registered in Crime No.32/08. 8. The complainant has filed in all (10) documents namely (1) original Motor Insurance certificate-cum-policy dt. 15-06-07 marked at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-1(1). (2) Certified copy of FIR & complaint marked at Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-2(1). (3) Charge sheet marked at Ex.P-3. (4) Further statement of one Bheemarayya marked at Ex.P-4. (5) Statement of complainant is marked at Ex.P-5. (6) M.V. Report marked at Ex.P-6. (7) Motor claim form marked at Ex.P-7 & bills for having repaid the vehicle are marked at Ex.P-7(1) to Ex.P-17(15). (8) D.L. marked at Ex.P-8. (9) R.C. Book marked at Ex.P-9. (10) Office copy of the legal notice marked at Ex.P-10 and two acknowledgements marked at Ex.P-10(1) & Ex.P-10(2). 9. The Respondent No-3 has raised his objection as the complainant is not the consumer as he has purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose, hence complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. No doubt the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question with the financial assistance of the Respondent No-3 and using the same for the purposes of business. From a perusal of the documents and pleadings of the parties, it is very clear that the complainant is using the said vehicle in order to earn his livelihood by engaging the same for transportation of the goods. Mere because of this it cannot be said that the vehicle has been used for commercial purpose. 10. It is not the case of the Respondent No-3 that the complainant is having more than one vehicle and engaged them for earning profit. In the absence of such pleadings it cannot be said that the complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose. In this regard we have relied upon the Honble National Commission decision laid down in Ashok Ley Land Finance Ltd., & Others V/s. Ramjilal Gupta Case which was cited in CPJ 2008 (I) at Page No.40, which reads as under: - Contention, two vehicles purchased for commercial purpose and not for personal use__Contention not acceptable__Complainant possesses only one vehicle__Evem if he possesses two vehicle father and son could drive them for self-employment__Complainant consumer. Here in this case the complainant is having only one vehicle and using it for earning something for his livelihood. Therefore the dictum laid down by the Honble National Commission under the above said case is rightly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, so we hold that the complainant is a consumer and case of the complainant is maintainable before this Forum. Hence we answered the Point No-1 in Affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 11. It is the case of the Respondent No- 1 & 2 is that, the complainant is having no transaction and correspondence with them and the complainant is having direct link with the Respondent No-3 as Respondent No-3 is the financier to the complainant. The complainant has not at all concerned to them. No doubt the complainant has purchased the vehicle through the Respondent No-3. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 they being an insurance company have got relationship with the complainant as insurer and insured in respect of the vehicle in question. The insurance company has got issued insurance policy in respect of the vehicle of the complainant as per Ex.P-1 and they have collected the premium amount in respect of the policy and the said policy is still alive during the course of accident. Under such circumstances the Respondent NO-1 & 2 cannot say that there is no transaction or correspondence binding on them in respect of the complainant is concerned. 12. It is worth while to note here that, at no point of time the Respondent No-1 & 2 have denied as the policy in question is not valid and the complainant has violated any terms and conditions of the policy. Under such circumstances, mere denying their relationship with the complainant is nothing but an escaping tactics in order to avoid their responsibility in respect of claim of the complainant is concerned. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 they being an insurance company after accepting the premium amount from the complainant, it is their duty to fulfill the claim of the complainant/insurer under the policy terms and conditions. Here in this case, immediately after the accident the complainant has submitted his claim along with necessary documents to the Respondent No-3 and in turn the Respondent No-3 has submitted same to the Respondent No-1 same thing has been admitted by Respondent No-3 in his affidavit at Para-9. Even in spite of receipt of the documents and claim form the Respondent No-3, the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have not settled the claim of the complainant. This itself would goes to show that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Respondent NO-1 & 2. 13. Further it is worth while to note here that the Respondents have not produced any documents to show that they have asked the complainant to produce some other documents and for which the complainant has not complied to their demands. In the absence of any such piece of evidence by the Respondents, we cannot hold that they have demanded other documents from the complainant in order to settle the claim of the complainant. On the other hand the complainant in his legal notice i.e, Ex. P-10 clearly mentioned about the incident and documents what he has submitted before the Respondents. The said legal notice was also served upon the Respondents Insurance Company. Neither the Respondent No-1 nor the Respondent No-2 replied the same. Even in spite of said notice Respondent No-1 & 2 remained silent now they are and trying to shift their burden over the complainant. Since they being an insurance company when the policy is in tact and there is no allegations against the complainant regarding violation of the policy conditions it is their bounden duty to comply with the claim of the complainant, but they have not done so. Hence we hold that it is totally negligence on the part of the Respondent No-1 & 2. 14. The Respondent No-3 is a financer and he has acted as a mediator between the Respondent No-1 & 2. More over the Respondent No-3 has in turn submitted all the documents to the Respondent No-1 immediately after receipt of the same from the complainant. This fact has not at all denied by the Respondent No-1 & 2 regarding receipt of the documents from the Respondent No-3. Under such circumstances we do not feel that there is negligence on the part of the Respondent No-3 and we have also felt that since the Respondent No- 1 & 2 as a insurance company they are liable to compensate the claim of the complainant. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved his case against the Respondent No-1 & 2, but not against the Respondent No-3. So the case against the Respondent NO-3 is dismissed as he is not liable for any compensation. Accordingly we answered Point No. 2. POINT NO.3:- 15. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 06-06-2008 to till realization, and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the litigation. The complainant has submitted bills to the tune of Rs. 38,885/- under Ex.P-7(2) to Ex.P-7(15) in respect of repairs and transportation charges and also submitted estimated bill to the tune of Rs. 1,68,550/- under Ex.P-7(1). On perusal of Ex.P-7(1) it appears that it is an only estimation issued by one Md. Shaik Hussain who is body builder of the vehicle. The complainant has not produced any bills apart from the bills shown under Ex.P-7(2) to Ex.P-7(15) The Ex.P-7(1) is a mere estimation hence we have not considered the estimation produced under Ex.P-7(1). The Respondent No- 1 & 2 through they have got surveyed the vehicle through their surveyor by name one Joshi Druvakumar they have not submitted his survey report and not produced any documents in order to show the actual loss assessed by him. 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-7(2) to Ex.P-7(15). Hence we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to claim to the tune of Rs. 38,885/- only towards the damage of the vehicle and not as Rs. 1,60,000/-. As regards to the claim of interest by the complainant at the rate of 18% p.a. is excessive, exorbitant there are no such special circumstances out coming to grant such higher rate of interest, however 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. Hence it is granted; accordingly we answered Point No-3. 16. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No- 1 & 2, as such we have granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- recoverable by the complainant from the Respondent 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 17. In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 to 3 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost against Respondent No- 1 & 2. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 43,885/- which is rounded to Rs. 44,000/- from the Respondent No- 1 & 2. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 44,000/- from the date of the judgement till realization of the full amount. The case against the Respondent No-3 is dismissed. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 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 16-11-09.) 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 Shekarppa against the three Respondents. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the owner of TATA Lorry bearing No. AP-21/T-5999 same was purchased with the financial assistance by Respondent No-3. The Respondent No-1 is Insurance Company by which the complainant has insured his vehicle under Policy No. 411300/31/2008/4468 having validity from 28-06-07 to 27-06-08. The Respondent No-2 is one of its Branch Office at Raichur. On 05-04-08 during the night hours at abut 1-00 a.m. when the lorry was transporting ground nut bags from Shorapur to Chennarayakote, near Halegolapalli village met with an accident by falling into the ditch when the lorry driver Mr. Yellappa lost his control over the vehicle. In the said accident one Basavaraj has lost his life and driver of the lorry was sustained with grievous injuries. The said accident was registered at Lingasugur Police Station by the cleaner of the lorry by name Bheemaraya. The case was registered in Crime No.32/08 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 by name Joshi Druvakumar, Raichur conducted survey and he submitted his report on 06-06-08 about the damage of the vehicle. After the intimation to the Respondents the complainant got repaired his vehicle at Mohd. Shaik Hussain. Lorry Body Builder, Raichur by spending more than Rs. 1,60,000/-. After the accident the complainant completed all formalities to claim insurance from Respondent 1 & 2 and submitted all documents along with claim form and original bills of repair on 06-06-08 through his financier i.e, Respondent No-3. The complainant repeatedly requested the Respondents to reimburse the repair expenses. But the Respondents 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. 17-12-08 against the Respondents calling upon to pay the vehicle damages amount within (15) days. Even in spite of that the Respondents did not settle the claim without any valid reasons and not replied to the said notice. 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. 1,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 06-06-08 to till realization and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. The Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and have filed their written statement. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 have filed their common written statement contending that the complainant has no direct dealing with this Respondents 1 & 2. The Respondent No-3 i.e, Sriram Finance is having contact with the present Respondents, hence they have informed to the Respondent No-3 to submit the documents of DL, Trips sheet, Cash bills, for various items for which the Respondent No-3 has not submitted the same, the said documents are material for verification and to arrive conclusion of authentication. Further it is contended that the complainant is having transaction with Respondent No-3 and in turn the said finance having dealing and transaction with Respondent No- 1 & 2. In view of the same the complainant if at all entitled for any amount he has get it from Respondent No-3. There is no any transaction, correspondence binding in between the complainant and the present Respondents, as such the liability and responsibility on the part of the present Respondents does not arise at all and they have also no knowledge of any liability or responsibility about the claim of the complainant as no transaction or correspondence of what so ever took place between the complainant and the Respondent and sought for dismissal of the complaint against them. 3. The complainant has impleaded the Respondent No-3 as party to the proceedings during the course of enquiry. The Respondent No-3 has filed his written version contending that the complainant has availed the loan from the present Respondent by executing hypothecation agreement to purchase the vehicle in question for transportation business to ply it for commercial purposes. Hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. The dispute raised by the complainant cannot be adjudicated by this Forum. Further it is contended that the present Respondent has submitted all the documents which are furnished by the complainant to the Respondent No-1 for settlement of his claim. The Respondent No-1 & 2 in turn intimated the complainant to produce spot, final, RI, CF, EST, verified documents RC, FC, Permit, parts verified by the surveyor, bills, driving licence and trip sheet along with NOC but the complainant has neglected to produce the said documents for issuing the cheques in favour of the financier but due to the negligence of the complainant himself the claim is not yet settled.. Even now also the present Respondent is ready to co-operate in getting the claim from the Respondent No-1 & 2, if the complainant fulfil all the requirements. Therefore there is no deficiency in the service on the part of the Respondent and sought for dismissal of the complaint. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (10) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-10. In-rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-2 by way of examination-in-chief of U. Jayaram Branch Manager; Similarly the Respondent No-3 has filed sworn affidavit of A. Srinivasalu, Branch Manager, M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Adoni. No documents were got marked on behalf of Respondents as no documents were produced. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant is not a consumer as contended by Respondent No-3.? 2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. In affirmative against Respondent No- 1 & 2 and in negative against Respondent No-3. 3. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that the complainant Shekarappa is the owner of TATA Lorry bearing No. AP-21/T-5999 same was purchased with the financial assistance by Respondent No-3. The Respondent No-1 is Insurance Company by which the complainant has insured his vehicle under Policy No. 411300/31/2008/4468 having validity from 28-06-07 to 27-06-08. The Respondent No-2 is one of its Branch Office at Raichur. On 05-04-08 during the night hours at about 1-00 a.m. the lorry met with an accident by falling into the ditch when the lorry driver Mr. Yellappa lost his control over the vehicle. The said accident was registered at Lingasugur Police Station by the cleaner of the lorry by name Bheemarayya. The case was registered in Crime No.32/08. 8. The complainant has filed in all (10) documents namely (1) original Motor Insurance certificate-cum-policy dt. 15-06-07 marked at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-1(1). (2) Certified copy of FIR & complaint marked at Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-2(1). (3) Charge sheet marked at Ex.P-3. (4) Further statement of one Bheemarayya marked at Ex.P-4. (5) Statement of complainant is marked at Ex.P-5. (6) M.V. Report marked at Ex.P-6. (7) Motor claim form marked at Ex.P-7 & bills for having repaid the vehicle are marked at Ex.P-7(1) to Ex.P-17(15). (8) D.L. marked at Ex.P-8. (9) R.C. Book marked at Ex.P-9. (10) Office copy of the legal notice marked at Ex.P-10 and two acknowledgements marked at Ex.P-10(1) & Ex.P-10(2). 9. The Respondent No-3 has raised his objection as the complainant is not the consumer as he has purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose, hence complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. No doubt the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question with the financial assistance of the Respondent No-3 and using the same for the purposes of business. From a perusal of the documents and pleadings of the parties, it is very clear that the complainant is using the said vehicle in order to earn his livelihood by engaging the same for transportation of the goods. Mere because of this it cannot be said that the vehicle has been used for commercial purpose. 10. It is not the case of the Respondent No-3 that the complainant is having more than one vehicle and engaged them for earning profit. In the absence of such pleadings it cannot be said that the complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose. In this regard we have relied upon the Honble National Commission decision laid down in Ashok Ley Land Finance Ltd., & Others V/s. Ramjilal Gupta Case which was cited in CPJ 2008 (I) at Page No.40, which reads as under: - Contention, two vehicles purchased for commercial purpose and not for personal use__Contention not acceptable__Complainant possesses only one vehicle__Evem if he possesses two vehicle father and son could drive them for self-employment__Complainant consumer. Here in this case the complainant is having only one vehicle and using it for earning something for his livelihood. Therefore the dictum laid down by the Honble National Commission under the above said case is rightly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, so we hold that the complainant is a consumer and case of the complainant is maintainable before this Forum. Hence we answered the Point No-1 in Affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 11. It is the case of the Respondent No- 1 & 2 is that, the complainant is having no transaction and correspondence with them and the complainant is having direct link with the Respondent No-3 as Respondent No-3 is the financier to the complainant. The complainant has not at all concerned to them. No doubt the complainant has purchased the vehicle through the Respondent No-3. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 they being an insurance company have got relationship with the complainant as insurer and insured in respect of the vehicle in question. The insurance company has got issued insurance policy in respect of the vehicle of the complainant as per Ex.P-1 and they have collected the premium amount in respect of the policy and the said policy is still alive during the course of accident. Under such circumstances the Respondent NO-1 & 2 cannot say that there is no transaction or correspondence binding on them in respect of the complainant is concerned. 12. It is worth while to note here that, at no point of time the Respondent No-1 & 2 have denied as the policy in question is not valid and the complainant has violated any terms and conditions of the policy. Under such circumstances, mere denying their relationship with the complainant is nothing but an escaping tactics in order to avoid their responsibility in respect of claim of the complainant is concerned. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 they being an insurance company after accepting the premium amount from the complainant, it is their duty to fulfill the claim of the complainant/insurer under the policy terms and conditions. Here in this case, immediately after the accident the complainant has submitted his claim along with necessary documents to the Respondent No-3 and in turn the Respondent No-3 has submitted same to the Respondent No-1 same thing has been admitted by Respondent No-3 in his affidavit at Para-9. Even in spite of receipt of the documents and claim form the Respondent No-3, the Respondent No- 1 & 2 have not settled the claim of the complainant. This itself would goes to show that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Respondent NO-1 & 2. 13. Further it is worth while to note here that the Respondents have not produced any documents to show that they have asked the complainant to produce some other documents and for which the complainant has not complied to their demands. In the absence of any such piece of evidence by the Respondents, we cannot hold that they have demanded other documents from the complainant in order to settle the claim of the complainant. On the other hand the complainant in his legal notice i.e, Ex. P-10 clearly mentioned about the incident and documents what he has submitted before the Respondents. The said legal notice was also served upon the Respondents Insurance Company. Neither the Respondent No-1 nor the Respondent No-2 replied the same. Even in spite of said notice Respondent No-1 & 2 remained silent now they are and trying to shift their burden over the complainant. Since they being an insurance company when the policy is in tact and there is no allegations against the complainant regarding violation of the policy conditions it is their bounden duty to comply with the claim of the complainant, but they have not done so. Hence we hold that it is totally negligence on the part of the Respondent No-1 & 2. 14. The Respondent No-3 is a financer and he has acted as a mediator between the Respondent No-1 & 2. More over the Respondent No-3 has in turn submitted all the documents to the Respondent No-1 immediately after receipt of the same from the complainant. This fact has not at all denied by the Respondent No-1 & 2 regarding receipt of the documents from the Respondent No-3. Under such circumstances we do not feel that there is negligence on the part of the Respondent No-3 and we have also felt that since the Respondent No- 1 & 2 as a insurance company they are liable to compensate the claim of the complainant. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved his case against the Respondent No-1 & 2, but not against the Respondent No-3. So the case against the Respondent NO-3 is dismissed as he is not liable for any compensation. Accordingly we answered Point No. 2. POINT NO.3:- 15. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 06-06-2008 to till realization, and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the litigation. The complainant has submitted bills to the tune of Rs. 38,885/- under Ex.P-7(2) to Ex.P-7(15) in respect of repairs and transportation charges and also submitted estimated bill to the tune of Rs. 1,68,550/- under Ex.P-7(1). On perusal of Ex.P-7(1) it appears that it is an only estimation issued by one Md. Shaik Hussain who is body builder of the vehicle. The complainant has not produced any bills apart from the bills shown under Ex.P-7(2) to Ex.P-7(15) The Ex.P-7(1) is a mere estimation hence we have not considered the estimation produced under Ex.P-7(1). The Respondent No- 1 & 2 through they have got surveyed the vehicle through their surveyor by name one Joshi Druvakumar they have not submitted his survey report and not produced any documents in order to show the actual loss assessed by him. 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-7(2) to Ex.P-7(15). Hence we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to claim to the tune of Rs. 38,885/- only towards the damage of the vehicle and not as Rs. 1,60,000/-. As regards to the claim of interest by the complainant at the rate of 18% p.a. is excessive, exorbitant there are no such special circumstances out coming to grant such higher rate of interest, however 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. Hence it is granted; accordingly we answered Point No-3. 16. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No- 1 & 2, as such we have granted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- recoverable by the complainant from the Respondent 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 17. In view of our finding on Point Nos.1 to 3 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost against Respondent No- 1 & 2. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 43,885/- which is rounded to Rs. 44,000/- from the Respondent No- 1 & 2. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 44,000/- from the date of the judgement till realization of the full amount. The case against the Respondent No-3 is dismissed. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 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 16-11-09.) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.