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

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Wednesday the 2^nd day of May, 2012

C.C.No.122/2011

Between:

S.Vali, S/o S.Masum Vali,

H.No.5-31, Pyalakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District - 518 464.             

   …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.40-581-A, 2^nd Floor, S.V. Complex, Kurnool - 518 003.       

                     ...Opposite ParTy

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainants and Sri N.Isaiah, 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 Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)

   C.C. No.122/2011

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.3,16,470/- to opposite party No.2 towards compensation for vehicle damages;

1. To grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- toward compensation for the mental agony and stress faced by the complainant for the negligent act of the opposite party;

1. To grant the interest at 18% per annum on the claim amount from the date of accident i.e., on 09-10-2007 till the date of realization to the opposite party No.2;

1. To grant the costs incurred to the complainant;
   •  
2. To pass such other orders necessary as may deem fit and proper in 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 TATA LPT 2515 bearing No.AP21 V 9269.  Opposite party No.1 is the insurer and opposite party No.2 is the financier of the said vehicle. Opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No.411300/31/2008/1827.      The said policy was in force from 04-05-2007 to 03-05-2008.  On 09-10-2007 the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident opposite to IOC Depot, Kundanapalli, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District.  Immediately the complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties.  The complainant also submitted claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  The spot surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1, he estimated the loss at Rs.3,16,470/-.  Inspite of repeated demands opposite party No.1 has not chosen to settle the claim of the complainant.   The complainant got issued a legal notice on 15-11-2009 to the opposite parties.  Opposite party No.1 replied in its notice dated 19-02-2011 by admitting the insurance policy and insisting the complainant to produce the original documents, though the original documents were submitted to the surveyor at the time of survey.  Due to the negligent attitude of opposite party No.1 the complainant suffered mental agony.  There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The vehicle of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1. After receiving the intimation about the accident opposite party No.1 appointed Sri G. Venkata Rama Raju an IRDA approved independent surveyor to assess the loss.  The loss was assessed at Rs.98,258/- and surveyor submitted the report on 26-05-2008.  The claim of the complainant  was not settled as he has not submitted the original R.C/FC Road Tax receipt, D.L particulars, original permit/Form 47, Original Load Challan, Original Cash bill etc., In the reply notice got issued by opposite party No.1 the complainant  was asked to produce the above said documents.  The complainant instead of submitting the said documents filed the present complaint.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party No.1.  The accident took place on 09-10-2007.  The complaint is filed beyond two years from the date of accident.  The complaint is barred by time.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

Opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  Opposite party No.2 is a financier.  Opposite party No.2 gave finance to the complainant to purchased the vehicle.  The documents received from the complainant regarding the settlement of claim are forwarded to opposite party No.1.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party No.2.  It is opposite party No.1 is liable to settle the claim of the complainant.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.2.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A11 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed.  Sworn affidavits of opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed. No exhibit is marked.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by time?

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:-  Admittedly the complainant  is the owner of the vehicle TATA LPT 2515 bearing No.AP21 V 9269.  EX.A1 is the copy of Registration certificate which stands in the name of the complainant.  Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1.  Ex.A2 is copy of the said policy.  It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 09-10-2007.  Admittedly prior to the filing of the present complaint, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties.  Opposite parties received the said notice and opposite party No.1 gave a reply Ex.A9 dated 19-02-2010 where in it is admitted that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 09-10-2001.  According to the opposite party No.1, the complaint is filed beyond two years from the date of accident, and it is barred by time.  The present complaint is filed on 09-09-2011, two years after the date of accident.  Admittedly after the accident, the complainant preferred claim to opposite party No.1 and the said claim is pending with opposite party No.1.  Under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the period of limitation is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The period of limitation starts from the date on which the claim of the complainant is repudiated.  The learned counsel for the complainant cited a decisions reported in I (2006) CPJ 150, I (2010) CPJ 595.  In the above cases it was held that Limitation starts from date of repudiation.  In the present case, admittedly the claim of the complainant is pending with opposite party No.1 by the date of filing of the complaint.  Therefore the contention of the Opposite party No.1 that the complaint is barred by time can not be accepted.

1. Points ii and iii: It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 V 9269.  The complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of registration certificate which stands in the name of the complainant.  The complainant insured his vehicle with opposite party No.1.  Ex.A2 is the copy of the said policy.  Opposite party No.1 in its reply notice, admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with it and the accident was occurred on 09-10-2007.  Ex.A7 is the copy of FIR in Crime No. 125/2007 issued by Ramagudam Police Station, Karim Nagar District dated 09-10-2007. The complainant claim damages of Rs.3,16,470/-.  Admittedly the opposite party No.1 appointed surveyor to estimate the loss.  The complainant filed Ex.A11 the surveyor report dated 26-05-2008. The surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.98,258/-. The complainant did not place satisfactory evidence to show that he sustained loss of Rs.3,16,470/-.  Both parties must give weight to the report of the surveyor.  The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.98,258/-.  The complainant is entitled to the said amount. 
2. It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that there is no deficiency of service  on its part and that the claim was not settled as the complainant  failed to submit original R.C., F.C.,D.L., and Load challan, FIR English translation, original permit and form 47 and Road Tax receipts and original cash bill etc. The opposite party No.1 kept quiet without issuing any notice to the complainant  demanding the complainant to produce the above said documents till the complainant  gave legal notice Ex.A8 dated 15-11-2009.  No material is placed on record by opposite party No.1 to show that opposite party No.1 demanded the complainant to produce the required documents prior to 25-11-2009.  In the survey’s report i.e., EX.A11 the particulars of driving license of driver are noted.  There is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party No.1 in keeping the claim of the complainant pending for a long time.

1.      In the result, the complaint  is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.98,258/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e., 09-11-2011 till the date of realization along with cost 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 2^nd day of May, 2012.

         Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                 Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                    PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: Nill                For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Photo copy of Registration Certificate of the Vehicle

                bearing No.AP21 V 9269.

Ex.A2                Photo copy of Policy bearing No.411300/31/2008/1827.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of National Permit for Public Carrier of the

                vehicle dated 23-10-2006.

Ex.A4                Photo copy of Authorization for Tourist Permit or National

Permit dated 18-05-2007.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Form-36 Certificate of Fitness

                F.C.No.FC/2499/2007/AP021 dated 12-08-2004.

Ex.A6                Photo copy of Crime Details Form No.125/2007 issued by

                Ramagundam P.S. Karim Nagar District

dated 09-10-2007.

Ex.A7                Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.125/2007 issued by

                Ramagundam P.S. Karim Nagar District

dated 09-10-2007.

Ex.A8                Office copy of Legal Notice dated 15-11-2009.

Ex.A9                Reply Notice from opposite party No.1 dated 19-02-2010.

Ex.A10       Reply Notice from opposite party No.2 dated 25-11-2009.

Ex.A11       Motor Survey Report of Sri.G.Venkatarama RaJu,

                Insurance Surveyor, Kadapa dated 26-05-2008.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-  Nill

         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               :