.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 8^th day of May, 2012

C.C.No.145/2011

Between:

A.Prabhaker Reddy,S/o A.Mohana Krishna Reddy,

H.No.2/89, Dharmavaram Village, Addanki (M), Prakasam District - 523 201.      

…Complainant

                                       -Vs-

1. The Divisional Manager,Divisional Office - III, (CBU), Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

   Rosy Tower, 2^nd Floor, No.7, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034.              

2. The Branch Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited,

   H.No.2/414-A, T.T.D. Road, Nandyal - 518 501,Kurnool District.

                                        ...Opposite ParTy

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainants and Sri L.Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri K.Kapileswaraiah, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.     

            ORDER

                  (As per Sri.T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

   C.C. No.145/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.57,000/- to complainant towards compensation for vehicle damage;

1. To grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and stress faced by the complainant for the negligent act of the opposite party No.1;

1. To grant the interest at 18% per annum on the claim amount from the date of accident i.e., on 30-10-2006 till the date of realization to the complainant;

1. To grant the costs incurred to the complainant;
   •  
2. To pass such other orders necessary as may deem fit under the circumstances of the case and thus under justice.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA35 4935.  The complainant insured the said vehicle with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/7806.  The period of the policy is from 25-08-2006 to 24-08-2007.  On 30-10-2006 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident.  The complainant informed about the accident to the opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor.  The surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.57,000/-.  The complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.1 not settled the claim of the complainant.  The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties.  Opposite party No.1 gave a reply notice.  Even after receipt of the legal notice the opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant.  There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1.  Hence the complaint. 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that the vehicle bearing No.KA35 4935 was insured with opposite party No.1 under policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/8706.  The period of the policy is from 25-08-2006 to 24-08-2007.  The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 30-10-2006.  On information about the accident, the company appointed a surveyor by name Sri M.Rusheeswar Reddy.  The surveyor inspected the vehicle and submitted the final report dated 04-11-2007. He assessed the net loss at Rs.57,000/-. For settlement of the claim the complainant as to submit the claim forms original Registration Certification, driving licence of the driver etc, for verification.  The complainant did not produce the said documents before the opposite party No.1 for verification.  The driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.  The driver of the vehicle without valid and effective driving licence drove it in violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  Inspite of the reply notice dated 27-01-2010 given by the opposite party No.1 the complainant has not produced the relevant documents of the vehicle.  The claim of the complainant is pending for want of submission of the required documents.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        Opposite party No2 filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  Opposite party No.2 gave finance to the complainant to purchase the vehicle bearing No.KA35 4935.  On receipt of the information about the accident, opposite party No.2 informed the same to opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.2 submitted all the documents received from the complainant to opposite party No.1.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.  Opposite party is not liable for non settlement of the claim by opposite party No.1.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.2.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed.   On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavits of opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA35 4935.  The said vehicle is insured with opposite party No.1 under the original of Ex.B1 policy.  The policy was in force from 25-08-2006 to 24-08-2007.  Admittedly opposite party No.2 gave finance to the complainant to purchase the said vehicle.  It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 30-10-2006 and it was partly damaged in the said accident. The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that his vehicle met with an accident on 30-10-2006 and it was damaged.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 in their written versions clearly admitted that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 30-10-2006.  In the reply notice Ex.B3 issued by opposite party No.1 also it is clearly admitted that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 30-10-2006.  The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 30-10-2006 is not under dispute.

8.     The complainant filed the present complaint claiming compensation from opposite party No.1 stating that opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim inspite of several demands made by him.  Admittedly the accident took place on 30-10-2006 when the policy was in force.  Admittedly after receipt of information about the accident opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor by name Sri M.Rusheeswar Reddy.  The surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle and submitted final survey report Ex.B2 dated 04-11-2007 to opposite party No.1.  It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that the claim of the complainant was not settled as he failed to submit the registration certificate of the vehicle, driving licence of the driver of the vehicle etc.  The complainant got issued legal notice Ex.A1 demanding opposite party No.1 to settle the claim.  Opposite party No.1 gave reply under Ex.B3 dated 27-01-2010. In Ex.B3 issued by the opposite party No.1 the complainant was asked to produce the registration certification, driving licence of the driver of the vehicle etc.  No evidence is placed by the complainant to show that he submitted the registration certificate and driving licence of the driver of the vehicle to the opposite party No.1 on receipt of the reply notice Ex.B3.    It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that during the visit of the surveyor the registration certificate and driving licence of the driver of the vehicle were verified by the surveyor.  Ex.B2 is the surveyors report.  In the said surveyors report the particulars regarding the registration of the vehicle and also the particulars regarding the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle are clearly noted.  It is not stated in Ex.B2 that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time of accident.    Opposite party No.1 did not place any documentary evidence to show that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time of accident.  Merely because the complainant did not produce the registration certificate and driving licence of the driver of the vehicle, the opposite party No.1 cannot keep the claim of the complaint pending.  The final surveyor in Ex.B2 no where stated that the payment should be made by opposite party No.1 only on production of the registration certificate, driving licence of the driver of the vehicle.  Opposite party No.1 failed to settle the claim of the complainant even after the final surveyor filed his report Ex.B2.  There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1.

9.     The complainant claims compensation of Rs.57,000/-.  Admittedly the surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.57,000/- Ex.B2 final report of the surveyor.  Contents of the report of the surveyor must be given due weight by both parties.  There can not be any objection by opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of RS.57,000/- as assessed by the final surveyor.  Opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.  

10.    In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.57,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e., 03-10-2011 till the date of realization along with costs Rs.500/-.  The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 8^th day of May, 2012.

Sd/-                                                                                Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT        

                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: Nill                For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Office copy of Legal Notice dated 18-11-2009.

Ex.A2                Reply Letter from opposite party No.1 dated 27-01-2010.

Ex.A3                Reply Letter from opposite party No.2 dated 20-11-2009.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of Motor Vehicles Taxation Card.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/8706.

Ex.A6                Photo copy of Form of Certificate of Registration,

dated 29-09-2004.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- 

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/8706.

Ex.B2                Office copy of Motor (Final) Survey Report of

                Sri.M.Rusheeswar Reddy, Surveyor & Loss Assessor

dated 04-11-2007.

Ex.B3                Reply Letter from opposite party No.1 dated 27-01-2010.

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               :