BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 23rd day the February, 2006.
C.C.No.119/2005
Sayed Sirajuddin Khadri,
S/o Late S. Hafeejuddin Khadri,
Aged 50 years, H.No.40/36-2,
Jani Complex, Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Kurnool.
2.The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Anatapur.
This complaint coming on 17.2.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.L. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri Y.Jayaraju, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 and 2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt.C. Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.29,683/- with 18% interest towards damages caused to the Tata Sumo of the complainant, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the owner of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP21 V 9223 which is insured under policy bearing No.2005/3125 with opposite parties and the policy was inforce on the date of accident. On 10-12-2004 at about 9 A.M the said vehicle was proceeding from Kurnool to Atmakur and dashed the bulls coming from opposite direction near Gargeyapuram Village and the vehicle was badly damaged. Immediately after the accident the complainant intimated the accident to the opposite parties and submitted the claim form along with required documents for Rs.29,683/-. The opposite parties there after deputed a surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle and submitted his report to opposite party. The opposite parties did neither settle the claim nor repudiated, which amounts to deficiency of service. The above conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to file this complaint before the Forum.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents. Viz (1) Complainant’s notice dated 10-5-2005 addressed to opposite party No.2 (2) Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A1 and (3) Letter dated 18-7-2005 of opposite party to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum, as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties made their appearance through their standing counsel and filed separate written version denying there liability.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 submits that the complainant has hastily rushed to the Forum ever before his claim is settled by opposite party No.2 in fact it is for the opposite party No.2 to settle the claim after scrutinizing the claim papers and surveyors report and there is no delay or any deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1, hence, seeks for dismissal of complaint.
6. The written version of opposite party No.2 admits the complainant as the owner of the Tata Sumo AP21 V 9223 insured said vehicle under policy No.2005/3125 and the same is valid from 23-9-2004 to 22-9-2005. It also admits the complainant informed about accident and claim is submitted for Rs.29,683/-. But it alleges that as per their rules and terms and conditions of the policy the opposite party No.2 has to consider and scrutinise the claim and a final decision with regard to settlement of claim will be taken by opposite party No.2. It also submits that the surveyor assessed the loss of the said vehicle for Rs.16,000/- by mistake and oversight allowing payment of certain parts or repairs which ought to have been deleted or excluded as per the terms and conditions of the policy, hence, the opposite party No.2 requested the surveyor to reassess the loss and submit his revised report. After receipt of revised report dated 12-8-2005 the opposite party process the claim and found fit for settlement accordingly informed the complainant through its communication for settlement for Rs.6,300/-. Hence, there is no negligence or deficiency of service in settling the claim. And lastly, submits that it is ready and willing to pay the said amount of Rs.6,300/- to the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of its case the opposite party relied on the following documents. Viz (1) Policy terms and conditions for commercial vehicles (2) Insurance policy issued to the complainant bearing No.2005/3125 (3) Private and confidential report of P.Narendra Kishore dated 24-1-2005 and (4) Letter dated 12-8-2005 of surveyor P.Narendra Kishore to opposite party No.2, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 and 2 in reiteration of its written versions and above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B4 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite parties caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on opposite parties.:?
9. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle bearing No.AP21 U 9223 insured vide policy bearing No.2005/3125 with opposite party vide Ex.B2. While the said policy was inforce the said vehicle met with accident on 10-12-2004 and was extensively damaged and the complainant submitted claim form for Rs.29,683/- but the opposite party settled the claim for Rs.6,300/- vide Ex.A3. The said Ex.A3 is the letter dated 18-7-2005, it envisages that the complainant’s claim was for Rs.29,683/- but the surveyor P.Narendra Kishore assessed the loss to Rs.16,000/- by over sight vide Ex.B3 as per IMT-21 endorsement some parts are exclusable such as Head Lamps, Bumpers etc., subsequently, the said surveyor submitted his revised survey report dated 12-8-2004 and assessed the loss to Rs.6,300/- only. Therefore, the opposite party alleges that he complainant is entitle to said amount only. The Ex.B5 is the letter dated 12-8-2005 of surveyor P.Narendra Kishore addressed to opposite party No.2, it says that if IMT-21 endorsement is applicable to this policy of the complainant spare parts to be considered to Rs.6,326/- and labour charges to be considered to Rs.1,550/- are to be deducted from the net loss of Rs.16,000/- as assessed in the Ex.B3 than the balance amount comes to Rs.8,124/-( Rs.16,000-6,326+1,550), therefore, the complainant is entitle to Rs.8,124/-. The opposite party in their written version alleges that the complainant is entitle to Rs.6,300/- only and in the Ex.A3 also the opposite party alleges that the complainant is entitle to Rs.6,300/-only, it shall be relevant to know how the opposite party reached the figure of Rs.6,300/-, there is no material placed on record nor there is any averments in the written version as to the entitleness of the complainant to Rs.6,300/- only hence, the plea of the opposite party to settle the complainant’s claim to Rs.6,300/- is rejected.
10. Now the point is to what relief the complainant is entitle, the Ex.B3 surveyor’s report assessed the loss to Rs.16,000/- and the revised surveyor’s report vide Ex.B4 submits that Rs.6,326/- and Rs.1,550/- are to be deducted from the assessed amount of Rs.16,000/- then the remaining balance amount is payable to complainant which comes to Rs.8,124/- (Rs.16,000-6,328+1,550) hence, the complaint is entitle to said amount.
11. Consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.8,124/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of accident till realisation along with Rs.500/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall pay the supra awarded amount with 18% interest per annum from the date of default till realisation.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 23rd day of February, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses of Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Complainant’s notice dated 10-5-2005 addressed to opposite party No.2 Ex.A2 Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A1
Ex.A3 Letter dated 18-7-2005 of opposite party to the complainant
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Policy terms and conditions for commercial vehicles.
Ex.B2 Insurance policy issued to the complainant bearing No.2005/3125
Ex.B3 Private and confidential report of P.Narendra Kishore dated 24-1-2005 Ex.B4 Letter dated 12-8-2005 of surveyor P.Narendra Kishore to opposite party No.2
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri.M.L.Srinivsa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri Y.Jayaraju, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
