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 51 /10
Between:
P.Hussian Saheb, S/o P.Nabi Saheb,
H.No.11/357, Anthony Street, Gunthakal, Ananthapur District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager,Divisional Office III (CBU), The 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, Kurnool - 518 003.
…Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, 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. 51/10
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.1,90,000/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 19-10-2007 till the date of realization;
(b) To grant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- 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 lorry bearing No.AP02 U 7785. 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.411300/31/2007/19536 in favour of the complainant in respect of lorry bearing No.AP02 U 7785. The policy was in force from 03-02-2007 to 02-02-2008. On 19-12-2007 the lorry of the complainant met with an accident near Peapully Village, Ananthapur District and it is damaged. Immediately the complainant intimated 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 surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 estimated the loss at Rs.1,90,000/-. Inspite of several demands opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 07-10-2009 to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 received the notice but did not give any reply. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. After receiving the intimation about the accident opposite party No.1 appointed sport surveyor and final surveyor to assess the loss. Surveyor submitted his report on 16-02-2008. The claim is pending with opposite party No.1 as the complainant failed to submit the Original Cash Bills, Original Load Challana, Original Driving License etc. After receiving the legal notice got issued by the complainant, opposite party No.1 issued a reply calling upon to the complainant to submit the above documents. The complainant instead of the submitting the same filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. The accident took place on 19-12-2007 and the complaint is filed two years after the accident and that the complaint is barred by time.
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 A7 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 and B2 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 the complaint is barred by time.
- 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. POINT No.1 : It is the case of the complainant that the accident took place on 19-12-2007 that immediately after the accident he submitted his claim to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 and that opposite party No.1 has not chosen to settle the claim inspite of repeated the demands. According to opposite party No.1 the present complaint is filed two years after the accident and that the complaint is barred by time. The period of limitation to file a complaint under Consumer Protection Act is two years from the date of cause of action. Admittedly the claim of the complaint is pending with opposite party No.1 by the date of the present complaint. The period of limitation starts from the date of repudiation of the claim. Till that time there is continuing cause of action. The complainant filed the present complaint after issuing the legal notice to opposite parties. The complaint is well in time.
8. Points 2 and 3:- It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP02 U 7785. The complainant filed Ex.A2 registration certificate where in it is mentioned that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle. It is further case of the complainant that he insured his vehicle with opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/19536 Ex.A1 is the copy of the insurance policy. The said policy was in force from 03-02-2007 to 02-02-2008. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 19-12-2007 at Peapully Village and it was damaged. The opposite party No.1 gave a reply Ex.B1 admitting that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident. It is also admitted by opposite party No.1 that the claim of the complaint is pending and that opposite party No.1 also appointed a spot surveyor and final surveyor to assess the loss. The opposite party No.1 filed Ex.B2 final surveyor report of Simax Surveyors. It assessed the net liability of insurer at Rs.81,938/-. The complainant did not place satisfactory evidence on record to show that he got loss of Rs.1,90,000/-. The complainant also filed Ex.A3 estimation of the expenditure issued by Dada Peer Body Labour Works, Madanapalle. In the light of report of the final surveyor, opposite party No.1 is bound to pay damages of Rs.81,938/- to opposite party No.1.
9. It is the case of the complainant that along with claim form he submitted all the relevant documents to opposite party No.1 and that the opposite party No.1 wantonly prolonged the matter. According to opposite party No.1 the complainant did not submit the required documents to settle the claim and that the complainant filed present complaint without submitting documents required. According to opposite party No.1 the final surveyor submitted his report on 16-01-2008. Admittedly no notice was given to complainant requesting him to produce the documents like Original Load Challan, Original Driving License etc. Only after the complainant got issued a legal notice, opposite party No.1 gave reply stating that the above said documents are required to settle the claim. The failure on the part of opposite party No.1 to issue notice to complainant demanding for production of the above said documents reveals that opposite party No.1 was negligent in settling the claim of the complainant. In Ex.B2 it is clearly mentioned that the final surveyor verified the R.C, Driving License etc. Opposite party No.1 was negligent in settling the claim of the complainant with the time. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1
10. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay damages of Rs.81,938/- to the complainant, with interest at 9% P.A from the date of the complaint i.e. 26-11-2009 till the date of payment 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 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 Motor Insurance Policy No.411300/31/2007/19535.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Certificate of Registration vehicle
No.AP02 U 7785 issued by R.T.O Ananthapur.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Estimation of Dada Peer Body Labour Works Madanapalle, dated 26-12-2007.
Ex.A4 Office copy of legal notice dated 07-10-2009 along with postal receipt.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of reply notice from opposite party No.2
dated 29-10-2009 along with acknowledgement.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Driving License.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Motor claim form.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Letter dated 21-10-2009 issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.B2 Motor Final Survey Report dated 16-02-2008.
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 :
