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 8th day of May, 2012
C.C.No.123/2011
Between:
U.Noor Basha, S/o U.Kasim Saheb,
H.No.5/34, Allahbakash Street, Tadipathri, Ananthapur District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
- 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.2/414-A, T.T.D. Road, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
...Opposite ParTies
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.123/2011
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.4,78,260/- to opposite party No.2 towards compensation for vehicle damage;
- To grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and stress faced by the complainant for the negligent act of the opposite party;
- To grant the interest at 18% per annum on the claim amount from the date of accident i.e., on 31-01-2008 till the date of realization to the opposite party No.2;
- To grant the costs incurred to the complainant;
- 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 bearing No.AP02 W 2185. The complainant insured the said vehicle with opposite party No.1 though opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/24992. Te period of the policy is from 31-03-2007 to 30-03-2008. On 31-01-2008 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident. The opposite party No.1 appointed a sport surveyor. 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 said 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.AP02 W 2185 was insured with opposite party No.1 under policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/24992. The period of the policy is from 31-03-2007 to 30-03-2008. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 31-01-2008. On information the company appointed a surveyor to conduct the spot survey. The spot surveyor submitted his report dated 04-02-2008. Opposite party No.1 also appointed Sri.R.Balaraman to conduct the final survey. The final surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,79,885/-. For settlement of the claim the complainant has to submit the claim form original Registration Certification, original driving licence of 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 reply notice dated 22-02-2010 given by the opposite party 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. 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.AP02 W 2185. 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 A7 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B5 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 on 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.AP02 W 2185. The said vehicle is insured with opposite party No.1 under policy Ex.B1. The policy was in force from 31-03-2007 to 30-03-2008. 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 31-01-2008 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 31-01-2008 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 31-01-2008. The complainant also filed Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A7 in support of his contention that his vehicle met with an accident. Ex.A5 is photo copy of Certificate issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Renigunta Police Station. It is mentioned Ex.A5 that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 31-01-2008, and the front portion of it was damaged. Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Challan and Receipt for compounding offences under M.V. Act issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Renigunta. As seen from Ex.A4 it is very clear that the complainant paid compounding fee of Rs.300/-. Admittedly opposite party No.1 gave Ex.A2 reply notice where in it is admitted that the vehicle met with an accident on 31-01-2008.
8. The complainant filed the present complaint claiming compensation stating that opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim inspite of several demands made by him. Admittedly the accident took place on 31-01-2008 when the policy was in force. Admittedly after receiving information about the accident opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor by name Sri M.Mallikarjuna Rao. The spot surveyor submitted his report Ex.B2 to opposite party No.1. It is also admitted that opposite party No.1 also appointed a final surveyor by name Sri R.Balaraman and the said surveyor submitted the final survey report Ex.B3. 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 etc. The complainant got issued Ex.A1 legal notice dated 18-11-2009 demanding opposite party No.1 to settle the claim. Opposite party No.1 gave reply Ex.A2 dated 22-02-2010 stating that there was no deficiency of service on its part. In Ex.A2 reply notice issued by opposite party No.1 there is no mention that the claim of the complainant was not settled for want of registration certificate, driving licence of the driver of the vehicle etc. The final surveyor submitted Ex.B3 report dated 30-03-2009. Before submitting his report the final surveyor gave Ex.B4 notice to the complainant. In the said notice also there was no direction to the complainant to produce the registration certification, driving licence of the driver of the vehicle etc. Even after filing of the final surveyors report opposite party No.1 did not give any notice to the complainant directing him to produce registration certificate, driving licence of the driver of the vehicle etc., for verification. For the first time opposite party No.1 in its written version has stated that the claim of the complainant is pending for want of the documents like registration certificate, driving licence of the driver of the vehicle etc. In Ex.B2 spot survey report and Ex.B3 final survey report the particulars of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle are clearly mentioned. The particulars of the vehicle are also mentioned in Ex.B2 and Ex.B3. The accident took place on 31-01-2008. The opposite party No.1 did not choose to settle the claim of the complainant even after the receipt of the final survey report Ex.B3 dated 30-03-2009. The complainant filed the present complaint on 24-08-2011 as opposite party No.1 kept quite without settling the claim. There was deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. No evidence has been let in by the opposite party No.1 that the driver had no valid driving licence. In Ex.B3 it is stated that office verified the driving licence of the driver.
9. The complainant claims compensation of Rs.4,78,260/-. The complainant filed Ex.A6 quotation for Rs.4,79,250/-. The complainant did not choose to file the affidavit of the person who issued the original of Ex.A6. Admittedly the final surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 filed report Ex.B3 assessing the net liability of the insurer at Rs.1,79,885/-. The 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.1,79,885/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e., 24-08-2011 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 8th 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 Photo copy of Legal Notice dated 18-11-2009.
Ex.A2 Office copy of Reply Notice dated 22-02-2010.
Ex.A3 Office copy of Reply Notice dated 05-01-2010 by
opposite party No.2.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Challan and Receipt No.34346 for Rs.300/-.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Certificate issued by Sub-Inspector of
Police Renigunta Police Station Chitoor District.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Quotation for Rs.1,72,500/- of
G.M.S Auto Centre, Anantapur dated 11-02-2008.
Ex.A7 Photos (Nos.6).
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Motor Insurance Policy No.411300/31/2007/24992.
Ex.B2 Office copy of Spot Survey Report of M.Mallikarjuna Rao, Insurance Surveyor dated 04-02-2008.
Ex.B3 Office copy of Final Survey Report of R.Balaraman,
Engineer dated 30-03-2009.
Ex.B4 Letter of Surveyor Balaraman, Engineer addressed to
the complainant dated 21-03-2009.
Ex.B5 Letter of OP.No.1 addressed to the Mr.C.Soma Saker,
Advocate, Nandyal dated 22-02-2010.
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 :
