BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 07th day of September, 2010
C.C.No 162/09
Between:
Shaik Saheba, S/o. Hussain Saheb,
H.No.27-25, Atmakur, Kurnool District-518 517.
…..Complainant
-Vs-
The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Bhupal Complex, P.B.No.33,Park Road, Kurnool-518 001.
……Opposite Party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Azmathulla , Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. L. Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 162/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 & 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OP
(a) to pay Rs.3,71,972/- towards the loss estimated by the
Mahaboob Auto Mechanical Work Shop Atmakur,
(b) to award Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant,
( c) to award interest @ of 36% p.a from the date of the accident,
(d) to award cost of the complainant and
(e) to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deems fit and proper in the in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is the owner of a lorry bearing No. A.P-21-W-1940 . He insured the said lorry with OP under policy No.411300/ 31/2007 /7218. The policy was inforce from 31-07-2006 to 30-07-2008. On 17-07-2007 the complainant’s lorry met with an accident in Karnataka (State). The complainant informed about the accident to the OP. The OP appointed a surveyor to conduct the spot survey. Later the complainant shifted the damaged vehicle to the garage of Mahaboob Auto Mechanical Workshop at Atmakur in Kurnool District. The work shop estimated the damage at Rs.3,71,972/-. The OP also appointed another surveyor to conduct final investigation after the repairs of the vehicle. The 2nd surveyor verified the bills submitted by the complainant . The OP obtained a claim from the complainant. The complainant requested the OP to settle the claim at an early date. Inspite of several demands the OP did not choose to settle the claim. Hence the complaint.
3. OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The vehicle of the complainant is in hypothecation with the Citicrop Finance India Limited. After receiving the information about the accident the company appointed one Rajendra M.Giri as surveyor. He inspected the damaged vehicle submitted his report on 04-08-2007. Later the company appointed R. Jagadeesam insurance surveyor for final survey. He submitted his report assessing the loss at Rs.2,25,280/-. On receipt of the final survey report the company appointed N.R. Subramanien to submit his report for settlement of the claim. The said N.R.Subramanien submitted his report on 06-05-2008 assessing the amount payable at Rs.1,52,500/- and paid the same to Citicrop Finance India Limited by way of cheque dated 30-06-2008. The complainant knowing fully well about the settlement filed this complaint unnecessarily to gain wrongfully. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A3 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B7 are marked and the sworn affidavit of OP is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Points No.1 & 2 :- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No. A.P.21-W-1940 and he insured the same with the OP. The said policy was inforce from 31-07-2006 to 30-07-2008 Admittedly the lorry of the complainant met with an accident on 17-07-2007 . Admittedly after the intimation about the accident to the OP, the OP appointed one surveyor by name R. Jagadeesam. He filed his report Ex.B4 stating that the loss sustained was Rs.2,25,280/-. Admittedly another surveyor by name N.R.Subramanien was appointed by OP . He filed his report stating that the amount payable to the complainant is Rs.1,52,500/- . Ex.B5 is the report of N.R.Subramanien. It is the contention of the OP that with the consent of complainant it paid an amount of Rs.,1,52,500/- as assessed by the surveyor by name N.R.Subramanien to the financier Citicrop Finance India Limited by way of cheque on 30-06-2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the OP paid the said amount of Rs.1,52,500/- to the Citicrop Finance India Limited.
8. The complainant claims Rs.3,71,972/-. The complainant filed Ex.A3 bunch of bills and Ex.A2 estimation issued by Mahaboob Auto Mechanical Workshop . The complainant did not to choose to file the affidavit evidence of proprietor of Mahaboob Auto Mechanical Workshop. Merely basing on Ex.A2 and A3 it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,71,972/- . As already stated the surveyor appointed by the complainant in his report estimated the loss at Rs.2,25,280/-. There is no material on record to show that the report Ex.B4 filed by Jagadeesam , was obtained by playing fraud. The report Ex.B4 can not be ignored. As per Ex.B4 the total loss sustained by the complainant comes to Rs.2,25,280/- . Admittedly an amount of Rs.1,52,500/- was already paid by the OP to Citicrop Finance India Limited . There is no material to show that the complainant issued full satisfaction memo to the OP. The balance amount ( Rs.2,25,280 – Rs. 1,52,500) comes to 72,780/- . No doubt the complainant in his complaint no where stated about the payment of Rs.1,52,500/- by the company to Citicrop Finance India Limited. The OP did not pay the said amount Rs.72,780/- to the complainant . There is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
9. Point No.3: In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP to pay ( Rs.2,25,280 – Rs. 1,52,500) Rs. 72,780/- with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint i.e 17-09-2009 till the date of payment along with costs of Rs.500/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 07th day of September, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Photo copy of R.C. of the car bearing NO. AP 21W – 1940.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Bunch of bills in NO.30 and received endorsement of the surveyor.
Ex.A3. Photo copy of estimation issued by the Mahaboob Auto Mechanical Work Shop, Atmakur.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. True copy of the Insurance Policy of the Vehicle bearing NO.AP.21W 1940.
Ex.B2. The Spot Survey report, dt. 04-08-07 filed by Rajendra. M.GIRI to the company.
Ex.B3. Motor survey report (final), dt.07-01-08 filed by Mr.R.Jagadeesan to the company.
Ex.B4. Motor survey re inspection report, dt.07-01-08 filed by Mr.R.Jagadeesan to the company.
Ex.B5. Opinion report of N.R.Subramanien (L.S.Surveyor),
dt. 06-05-08.
Ex.B6. Satisfaction note/no objection letter submitted by the complainant to the company, dt. 20-06-08
Ex.B7. Claim payment voucher to the financiers, dt. 23-06-08.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
