The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd., V/S B. Gururaj S/o. B.Venkaiah - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 97/06

B. Gururaj S/o. B.Venkaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri. M. Manjunath

28 Feb 2007

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 97/06

B. Gururaj S/o. B.Venkaiah						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd., The Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd.,						...........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 This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant B.Gururaj against Respondents (1) Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., and (2) Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-36/2705 and the same was insured with Respondent No-1 under comprehensively policy through policy Cover Note No. B-64473 which is valid from 21-03-04 to 20-03-05.On 15-01-05 at about 4-30 A.M. the above said lorry of the complainant had met with an accident near Micro Towers, Raichur on Raichur Lingasugur Road and the West Police Raichur have registered a case in Crime No. 7/2005 U/s. 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and U/s. 134, 187 of M.V. Act against the driver of lorry. After the accident the same was informed to Respondent NO-2. The surveyor of the Respondent NO-2 inspected the vehicle and submitted his report. The complainant does not accept the quantum of assessment arrived at by the surveyor. For replacement of spare-parts and other mechanical charges the complainant has spent Rs. 49150/-, original bills submitted by him are with the Respondent NO-2. According to the contractual terms of the Insurance Policy, the Respondents are liable to pay the claim amount of the damages caused to the vehicle. The complainant requested several times to both the Respondents for settling his claim. But they are neglecting so the complainant got issued legal notice dt. 05-05-06 to both the Respondents. In-spite of that the Respondents are not interested in settling the matter which clearly amounts to negligecy and deficiency in service. Hence the Respondents are liable to pay Rs. 35,150/- towards purchase of spare-parts, Rs. 14,000/- towards labour charges and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of earnings totaling to Rs. 64,150/-. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondent No-1 to pay the claim amount of Rs. 64,150/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 15-01-05 till realization along with cost of proceedings. 2. In response to service of notice Respondent NO-1 remained absent when called out on 31-07-06 so Respondent No-1 has been placed Ex-parte. Respondent NO-2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement as under: The averments of the complaint regarding ownership of the lorry bearing Registered No. KA-36/2705 and the same was insured with Respondent NO-1 are true and admitted. The contents of para-2 of the complaint regarding description and place of accident etc., the complainant is put to strict proof. On the information of vehicle accident by the complainant, this Respondent No-2 simply forwarded the papers to the Chennai Divisional Office. The said vehicle was insured with Respondent NO-1 in Chennai. The survey of damaged vehicle by the insurance Company surveyor is true and correct. The damage assessed by the surveyor is correct. The complainant did not spend amount of Rs. 49-150/-. He has prepared false bills in-order to support false claim. Respondent is not liable to pay that amount as per terms of the policy. The complainant did not submit all required documents. After receiving all documents if case of the complainant is fit case for settlement Insurance Company is always ready to settle the matter. The Respondent NO-1 Insurance Company did not refuse the claim but the complainant approached the Forum hurriedly. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file this case. So there is no deficiency on the part of the Respondent. As per the provisions of law complainant is to the field where cause of action arose or where the defendant resides. In this case policy is issued by the Respondent NO-1 in Chennai, hennce the cause of action arose at Chennai. The office of the Respondent NO-1 is situated at Chennai. This Respondent NO-2 is made un-necessary party so this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Hence for all these Respondent NO-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his affidavit as examination-in-chief and got marked (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-9. In-rebuttal the Administrative Officer of Respondent NO-2 has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and no documents are filed or got marked on behalf of Respondents. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding 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 is the owner of lorry bearing Registration No. KA-36/2705 and it was insured with Respondent NO-1 Insurance Company through Policy Cover Note No. B. 64473 for the period from 21-03-04 to 20-03-05. It is the case of the complainant that on 15-01-05 at about 4-30 A.M. his lorry met with an accident near Micro Towers Raichur, on Raichur-Lingasugur Road and the West Police, Raichur have registered a case in Crime No. 7/05 U/s. 279, 337, 304(A) IPC & U/s. 134, 187 of M.V. Act against the driver of the lorry. He has produced FIR with complaint at Ex.P-1 and the certified copy of the charge-sheet at Ex.P-2 certified copy of spot panchanama conducted by the policy at Ex.P-3 and Motor Vehicle Accident Report at Ex.P-4. From perusal of Ex.P-1 to P-4 it amply shows that the lorry in-question had met with an accident in Raichur and driver of the lorry was charge-sheeted. So the complainant has proved the accident of the lorry in-question and territorial jurisdiction of this Forum U/s. 11(c) of C.P. Act which was disputed by the Respondent No-2 is the written version. 7. The complainant allegations that after the accident he informed the same to Respondent No-2 and a surveyor of Respondent NO-2 inspected and conducted survey and submitted his report to Respondent has been admitted by Respondent NO-2 in para-5 of written version. Hence it follows that after the accident the vehicle was got surveyed by surveyor who submitted report. The complainant has produced Xerox copy of survey report which has not been objected by Respondent and so has been marked as Ex.P-9. As per survey report tat Ex.R-9 the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 24,500/-. The complainant has disputed the same as the surveyor has assessed the loss at lower side as against the purchase price of spare-parts, replacement of parts and labour charges at Rs. 49,150/-. The Respondent No-2 contended that the damage assessed by the surveyor is correct and that the complainant did not spend Rs. 49,150/- and has prepared false bills in-order to support his false claim. The complainant has not produced any piece of paper to show that he had disputed the survey report before the Respondent by convincing the vouchers for the claim of Rs. 49,150/- and sought for second surveyor if any. From perusal of Ex.P-9 we do not find any iota in support of the allegation made by the complainant. Even the complainant have not subjected the surveyor for cross-examination by-way of interrogatories. Under all these circumstances the contention of the complainant disputing the survey report does not stand to reason. But the non-payment of assessed loss by the Respondent amounts to deficiency in service. Hence Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 8. The complainant has sought for Rs. 35,150/- towards purchase of spare-parts, Rs. 14,000/- towards labour charges totaling to Rs. 49,150/- and loss of earnings at Rs. 15,000/- thus he has claimed Rs. 64,150/- along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of accident till realization. In-view of our finding on Point NO-1 the complainant is entitled to loss assessed by Surveyor the loss as against Rs. 49,500/- claimed by him. So far as the claim of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of earnings and interest at 24% p.a. from the date of accident till realization, is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the date of accident which occurred on 15-01-05, we feel it just and proper to award a global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- hence we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents No- 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall pay the assessed loss of Rs. 24,500/- along with global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant Both the Respondents shall comply this order within six 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 28-02-07) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. On Leave/- Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant B.Gururaj against Respondents (1) Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., and (2) Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-36/2705 and the same was insured with Respondent No-1 under comprehensively policy through policy Cover Note No. B-64473 which is valid from 21-03-04 to 20-03-05.On 15-01-05 at about 4-30 A.M. the above said lorry of the complainant had met with an accident near Micro Towers, Raichur on Raichur Lingasugur Road and the West Police Raichur have registered a case in Crime No. 7/2005 U/s. 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and U/s. 134, 187 of M.V. Act against the driver of lorry. After the accident the same was informed to Respondent NO-2. The surveyor of the Respondent NO-2 inspected the vehicle and submitted his report. The complainant does not accept the quantum of assessment arrived at by the surveyor. For replacement of spare-parts and other mechanical charges the complainant has spent Rs. 49150/-, original bills submitted by him are with the Respondent NO-2. According to the contractual terms of the Insurance Policy, the Respondents are liable to pay the claim amount of the damages caused to the vehicle. The complainant requested several times to both the Respondents for settling his claim. But they are neglecting so the complainant got issued legal notice dt. 05-05-06 to both the Respondents. In-spite of that the Respondents are not interested in settling the matter which clearly amounts to negligecy and deficiency in service. Hence the Respondents are liable to pay Rs. 35,150/- towards purchase of spare-parts, Rs. 14,000/- towards labour charges and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of earnings totaling to Rs. 64,150/-. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondent No-1 to pay the claim amount of Rs. 64,150/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 15-01-05 till realization along with cost of proceedings. 2. In response to service of notice Respondent NO-1 remained absent when called out on 31-07-06 so Respondent No-1 has been placed Ex-parte. Respondent NO-2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement as under: The averments of the complaint regarding ownership of the lorry bearing Registered No. KA-36/2705 and the same was insured with Respondent NO-1 are true and admitted. The contents of para-2 of the complaint regarding description and place of accident etc., the complainant is put to strict proof. On the information of vehicle accident by the complainant, this Respondent No-2 simply forwarded the papers to the Chennai Divisional Office. The said vehicle was insured with Respondent NO-1 in Chennai. The survey of damaged vehicle by the insurance Company surveyor is true and correct. The damage assessed by the surveyor is correct. The complainant did not spend amount of Rs. 49-150/-. He has prepared false bills in-order to support false claim. Respondent is not liable to pay that amount as per terms of the policy. The complainant did not submit all required documents. After receiving all documents if case of the complainant is fit case for settlement Insurance Company is always ready to settle the matter. The Respondent NO-1 Insurance Company did not refuse the claim but the complainant approached the Forum hurriedly. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file this case. So there is no deficiency on the part of the Respondent. As per the provisions of law complainant is to the field where cause of action arose or where the defendant resides. In this case policy is issued by the Respondent NO-1 in Chennai, hennce the cause of action arose at Chennai. The office of the Respondent NO-1 is situated at Chennai. This Respondent NO-2 is made un-necessary party so this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Hence for all these Respondent NO-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his affidavit as examination-in-chief and got marked (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-9. In-rebuttal the Administrative Officer of Respondent NO-2 has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and no documents are filed or got marked on behalf of Respondents. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding 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 is the owner of lorry bearing Registration No. KA-36/2705 and it was insured with Respondent NO-1 Insurance Company through Policy Cover Note No. B. 64473 for the period from 21-03-04 to 20-03-05. It is the case of the complainant that on 15-01-05 at about 4-30 A.M. his lorry met with an accident near Micro Towers Raichur, on Raichur-Lingasugur Road and the West Police, Raichur have registered a case in Crime No. 7/05 U/s. 279, 337, 304(A) IPC & U/s. 134, 187 of M.V. Act against the driver of the lorry. He has produced FIR with complaint at Ex.P-1 and the certified copy of the charge-sheet at Ex.P-2 certified copy of spot panchanama conducted by the policy at Ex.P-3 and Motor Vehicle Accident Report at Ex.P-4. From perusal of Ex.P-1 to P-4 it amply shows that the lorry in-question had met with an accident in Raichur and driver of the lorry was charge-sheeted. So the complainant has proved the accident of the lorry in-question and territorial jurisdiction of this Forum U/s. 11(c) of C.P. Act which was disputed by the Respondent No-2 is the written version. 7. The complainant allegations that after the accident he informed the same to Respondent No-2 and a surveyor of Respondent NO-2 inspected and conducted survey and submitted his report to Respondent has been admitted by Respondent NO-2 in para-5 of written version. Hence it follows that after the accident the vehicle was got surveyed by surveyor who submitted report. The complainant has produced Xerox copy of survey report which has not been objected by Respondent and so has been marked as Ex.P-9. As per survey report tat Ex.R-9 the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 24,500/-. The complainant has disputed the same as the surveyor has assessed the loss at lower side as against the purchase price of spare-parts, replacement of parts and labour charges at Rs. 49,150/-. The Respondent No-2 contended that the damage assessed by the surveyor is correct and that the complainant did not spend Rs. 49,150/- and has prepared false bills in-order to support his false claim. The complainant has not produced any piece of paper to show that he had disputed the survey report before the Respondent by convincing the vouchers for the claim of Rs. 49,150/- and sought for second surveyor if any. From perusal of Ex.P-9 we do not find any iota in support of the allegation made by the complainant. Even the complainant have not subjected the surveyor for cross-examination by-way of interrogatories. Under all these circumstances the contention of the complainant disputing the survey report does not stand to reason. But the non-payment of assessed loss by the Respondent amounts to deficiency in service. Hence Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 8. The complainant has sought for Rs. 35,150/- towards purchase of spare-parts, Rs. 14,000/- towards labour charges totaling to Rs. 49,150/- and loss of earnings at Rs. 15,000/- thus he has claimed Rs. 64,150/- along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of accident till realization. In-view of our finding on Point NO-1 the complainant is entitled to loss assessed by Surveyor the loss as against Rs. 49,500/- claimed by him. So far as the claim of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of earnings and interest at 24% p.a. from the date of accident till realization, is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the date of accident which occurred on 15-01-05, we feel it just and proper to award a global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- hence we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents No- 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall pay the assessed loss of Rs. 24,500/- along with global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant Both the Respondents shall comply this order within six 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 28-02-07) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. On Leave/- Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.