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
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
C.C.No 40/10
Between:
S.Abdul Rawoof, S/o. Shaik Abdul Kareem,
H.No.4-149-168-7, Teachers Colony, Dhone - 518 222, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager,Divisional Office III (CBU), Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rosy Towers, 2nd floor, No.7,Nungabakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.
2. The Branch Manager,Shriram Transport and Finance Company Limited,
H.No.40-581-A, 2nd Floor, S.V. Complex, R.S.Road, Kurnool - 518 003.
…Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Shivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri N.Isaiah, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri N.Guru Shankaraiah, Advocate for opposite party No.2 upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 40/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.1,31,150/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 02-12-2006 till the date of realization;
(b) To grant a sum of RS. 50,000/- towards mental agony;
(c) To grant the cost of the complaint;
- To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant
is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 X 0422. The 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. 411300/31/2007/243 in favour of the complainant. It was valid from 04-04-2006 to 03-04-2007. On 02-12-2006 the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident and the same was registered in Krishna Giri Police Station of Kurnool District. After the accident the complainant informed about it to the opposite parties. The complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. The surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.1,31,150/-. Inspite of several demands opposite party No.1 not settled the claim of the complainant. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 15-11-2009 to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 gave a reply notice. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant lorry was insured with opposite party No.1 under the policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/243 for the period from 04-04-2006 to 03-04-2007. It is false that the lorry of the complainant met with an accident on 02-12-2006. Opposite party No.1, never received any intimation about the accident. No surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1 to estimate the loss. Opposite party No.1 gave a reply notice for notice got issued by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Opposite party No.2 is not a proper and necessary party. Opposite party No.2 is a financier. Opposite party No.2 gave finance to the complainant to purchase the vehicle. The documents received from the complainant regarding to settlement of the 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 who is liable to settle the claim of the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A11 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B4 are marked and sworn affidavits of Senior Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool and opposite party No.2 are filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(c) To what relief?
7. POINTS 1 & 2: It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 X 0422 Ex.A1 is the registration certificate of the said lorry. It is admitted by opposite party No.1 that the complainant is the owner of the above said lorry. It is specific case of the complainant that his lorry met with an accident on 02-12-2006 and that Krishna Giri Police Station Registered a case. Opposite party No.1 denied that the lorry of the complainant met with an accident on 02-12-2006. It is for the complainant to establish that his lorry met with an accident on 02-12-2006 and it was damaged in the said accident. The complainant in his sworn affidavit has stated that his vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 02-12-2006 and that Krishna Giri Police Station Registered a case. The complainant did not place any documentary evidence to show that Krishna Giri Police Station registered a case regarding the alleged accident on 02-12-2006 in respect of the vehicle of the complainant. No copy of the FIR is filed by the complainant. The complainant filed Ex.A6 certificate said to have been issued by the S.I. of Krishna Giri Police Station and also panchanama dated 02-12-2006. To prove the contents of the Ex.A6 and A7 the complainant has not chosen to file the affidavit evidence of any one connected to Ex.A6 and A7. It is mentioned in Ex.A6 certificate that he lorry bearing No.AP21 X 0422 was damaged in the accident that took place on 02-12-2006. The sub inspector of police Krishna Giri Police Station is the material witness to prove the contents of Ex.A6 and A7. Merely basing on Ex.A6 and A7 photo copies the contention of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 02-12-2006 and it was damaged in the said accident cannot be believed. Admittedly prior to the filing of the complaint, the complainant got a legal notice issued to the opposite parties. Ex.A9 is the copy of the said notice where in it is mentioned that on 03-12-2006 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and damaged. There is inconsistency regarding the date of the accident.
8. It is also the case of the complainant that immediately after the accident he informed the same to the opposite parties and that the opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor. According to the opposite party No.1 that it was not informed about the accident by the complainant and that no surveyor was appoint by it to assess the loss. The complainant no where in the complaint mentioned the name of the surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1. For the first time the complainant in his written arguments has stated that Sri B.P.K.Reddy was appointed as spot surveyor and Mr.M.R.Srinivasan as final surveyor. The complainant has not chosen to file the affidavits of Sri B.P.K.Reddy and Mr.Srinivasan to establish that they were appointed as surveyors by opposite party No.1. No document is filed by the complainant to show that he informed about the alleged accident to opposite party No.1 immediately. It is the case of the complainant that he submitted the claim to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 is financier for the purchase of the vehicle. Had opposite party No.2 submitted the claim to opposite party No.1 there must be some record. Opposite party No.2 did not file any record to show that it submitted the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 in its written version also not mentioned the date on which it forwarded the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the surveyor Sri B.P.K.Reddy also claimed his fee from opposite party No.1. Ex.B3 is the photo copy of the surveyor’s bill. To prove Ex.B3 the complainant has not chosen to file the affidavit of Sri B.P.K.Reddy. Merely basing on Ex.B3 it cannot be believe that opposite party No.1 appointed surveyors and that the surveyors estimated the loss at Rs.1,31,150/-.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that he got his vehicle repaired by spending huge amount. He filed Ex.B4 photo copy of the bills said to have been issued by Devendra Auto Garege, Dhone. The complainant no where in his complaint mentioned that he got his vehicle repaired in Devendra Auto Garege, Dhone. The complainant failed to establish that his vehicle met with an accident and that he informed about the same to the opposite parties. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the insured must inform to the insurer about the accident of the vehicle immediately. There is no evidence that the complainant informed about the accident to opposite party No.1 and that opposite party No.1 appointed surveyors to assess the loss. It is also not proved by the complainant that his claim is pending with opposite party No.1 and that opposite party No.1 neglected to settle the claim. Had the accident took place on 02-12-2006 it is not know as to why the complainant kept quite till 15-11-2009 with out making a claim. The complainant could not establish that his vehicle met with an accident on 02-12-2006 and it was damaged. The decisions cited by the complainant are no why helpful to him for the simple reasons that the complainant failed to establish that his claim was pending with opposite party No.1. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
10. In result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
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 Certificate of Registration of vehicle
No.AP21 X 0422 issued by R.T.O. Kurnool.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of National Permit.
Ex.A3 photo copy of Insurance Policy No.411300/31/2007/243.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of e-seva Tax receipt dated 30-10-2006 for Rs.5,750/-.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Driving License of Monnur Saheb.S.C.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of certificate issued by S.I. of police, Krishna Giri, dated 02-12-2006.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Panchanama, dated 02-12-2006.
Ex.A8 Motor claim form.
Ex.A9 Photo copy of legal notice dated 15-11-2009.
Ex.A10 Reply notice of opposite party No.1 dated 27-11-2009.
Ex.A11 Reply notice of opposite party No.2, dated 25-11-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of reply notice of opposite party No.1,
dated 27-11-2009.
Ex.B2 Insurance Policy No.411300/31/2007/243.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of survey bill for Rs.770/-, dated 02-12-2006.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of A bunch of bills (No.6).
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 :
