BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday the 14th day of June, 2012
C.C.No.124/2011
Between:
Y.Koti Reddy,S/o Y.Konda Reddy,
H.No.28, Teachers Colony,Saibaba Nagar,Nandyal - 518 501,
Kurnool District .
…Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Divisional Manager,Divisional Office - III, (CBU), Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rosy Tower, 2nd Floor, No.7,Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034.
2. The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited,
H.No.25/557-1, 1st Floor, Opp. Rama Krishna Degree College,
Nandyal - 518 501, Kurnool District.
...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri Y.Jaya Raju, 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.124/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for vehicle damage;
- To grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and stress faced by the complainant due to the negligent act of the opposite party;
- To grant interest at 18% per annum on the claim amount from the date of accident i.e., 26-04-2008 till the date of realization;
- To grant the costs incurred to the complainant;
And
- To pass such other order or orders that are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the registered over of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 21 W 1511. The complainant insured the said vehicle with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 under the policy bearing No.411300/31/2008/1688. The period of the policy is from 30-04-2007 to 29-04-2008. On 26-04-2008 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident. The complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor and estimated the loss. The complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has not settled the claim of the complainant. The complainant got issued legal notice to opposite party No.1 on 25-11-2009. Opposite party No.1 gave a reply notice on 28-04-2010 stating that some more documents are required to process the claim. The opposite party No.1 failed to settle the claim and sent a reply notice with false allegation. Due to negligent attitude of opposite party No.1, the complainant suffered mentally. There is delay in settlement of the claim. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 21 W 1511 and the same was insured with opposite party No.1. The vehicle met with an accident on 26-04-2008 when the policy was in force. It is false to state that the complainant has to submit the claim with all relevant documents. Opposite party No.1 issued reply notice for the legal notice got issued by the complainant. After the receipt of the information about the accident, spot surveyor was appointed. Final survey was also conducted by the surveyor. Original load challan and F.I.R. translation were not furnished by the complainant. Opposite party No.1 informed opposite party No.2 to produce the said documents. The complainant did not produce the same even after the reply notice got issued by opposite party No.1. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 26-04-2008. Opposite party No.2 is the financier. Whatever the documents received from the complainant were forwarded to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is nothing to do with the settlement of claim by opposite party No.1. No claim is made by the complainant against opposite party No.2. The complainant against opposite party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B4 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:
- Whether there is deficiency of service the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 21 W 1511. The said vehicle is insured with opposite party No.1 under the policy Ex.A1. The period of the policy is from 30-04-2007 to 29-04-2008. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 26-04-2008. The complainant filed Ex.A2 copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A3 Accident Report from Motor Vehicle Inspector to establish that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 26-04-2008. Opposite party No.1 in its written version clearly admitted that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 26-04-2008. The vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident that took place on 26-04-2008 is not under dispute. Admittedly after the accident the complainant informed about the accident to opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 appointed a spot surveyor and final surveyor.
8. The complainant filed the present complaint claiming compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- along with costs etc. It is the contention of the opposite party No.1 that the claim of the complainant was not settled, as he failed to submit original load challan and F.I.R. translation. Admittedly prior to filling of the complaint, the complainant got issued Ex.A5 legal notice dated 25-11-2009 to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 gave a reply notice Ex.A6 dated 28-04-2010. In Ex.A6 also it is mentioned that the claim of the complaint is pending for want of original load challan and F.I.R. translation. Admittedly the final surveyor submitted the survey report Ex.B4 to opposite party No.1. In the final survey report Ex.B4 the surveyor clearly mentioned in English the contents of the F.I.R. which is in Telugu Language. Ex.B4 final survey report does not disclose the particulars regarding load challan. The opposite party No.1 cannot keep the claim of the complaint pending on technical grounds for long time. The opposite party No.1 having received Ex.A5 legal notice dated 25-11-2009 did not try to settle the claim of the complainant. The opposite party No.1 gave Ex.A6 reply notice dated 28-04-2010. The complainant filed the present complaint on 24-08-2011. The claim of the complainant is still pending with opposite party No.1. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 in settling the claim of the complainant.
9. According to the complainant, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. Admittedly the final surveyor submitted Ex.B4 final survey report. The final surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs.1,07,000/-. The report of the final surveyor must be given due weight. The surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs.1,07,000/-. The complainant is entitled for the said amount. The complainant did not place any satisfactory evidence to show that he is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. Opposite party No.2 only a financier. No prayer is asked against opposite party No.2 by the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-.
10. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of order along with costs of 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 14th day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.411300/31/2008/1688.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.26/2008 Kadapa P.S.
dated 26-04-2008.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Accident Report from Motor Vehicle
Inspector dated 02-05-2008.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Estimation Report.
Ex.A5 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 25-11-2009.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Reply Notice from opposite party No.1 to
complainant Advocate dated 28-04-2010.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Reply Notice from opposite party No.2 to
complainant Advocate dated 10-12-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Legal Notice dated 25-11-2009.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Reply Notice from opposite party No.1 to
complainant Advocate dated 28-04-2010.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Reply Notice from opposite party No.2 to
complainant Advocate dated 10-12-2009.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of Final Survey Report dated 08-12-2008.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// 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 :
