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
Friday the 1st day of April, 2011
C.C.No.53 /10
Between:
P.Shakeera, W/o P.Khalil,
H.No.11-333, Antony 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. 53/10
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.4,64,920/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 07-05-2007 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 7889. 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.411300/31/2007/20822 in favour of the complainant in respect of the lorry bearing No.AP02 U 7889. The said policy was in force from 16-02-2007 to 15-02-2008. On 03-05-2007 the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident near Peranam Pattu Village, Chittoor 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 surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1 estimated the loss at Rs.4,64,920/-. 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 25-11-2009 to the opposite parties. Opposite parties received the said notices but opposite party No.1 failed to give any reply. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The lorry of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1. The complainant submitted the claim to opposite party No.1. After receiving the intimation about the accident opposite party No.1appointed B.Suneel Kumar as spot surveyor and one K.P.Balakrishnan as final surveyor to assess the loss. The loss was assessed at Rs.1,23,000/- and surveyor submitted the report on 17-12-2007. The claim of the complainant was not settled as he filed to submit the Original Cash Bills, Original Load Challan, Original R.C., Driving License 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 opposite party No.1. The accident took place on 09-05-2007. The complainant is filed beyond two years from the date of accident. 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 A6 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B3 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 : Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP02 U 7889, Ex.A5 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. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 03-05-2007. 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 notices and opposite party No.1 gave a reply Ex.B1 admitting that the vehicle of the complainant met with accident on 03-05-2007. According to opposite party No.1, the complainant is failed beyond two years from the date of accident and it is barred by time. The present complaint is filed on 15-02-2010, two years after the date of the 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 the 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 repudiate. 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 cannot be accepted.
8. Points 2 and 3:- It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP02 U 7889. The complainant filed Ex.A5 copy of the registration certificate which stands in the name of the complainant. It is also the case of the complainant that he insured his vehicle with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 in its reply notice admitted that he vehicle of the complainant bearing No.AP02 U 7889 was insured with it. The complainant claims damages of Rs.4,64,920/-. Admittedly opposite party No.1 appointed surveyors to estimate the loss. Opposite party No.1filed Ex.B3 final surveyors report dated 17-12-2007. The final surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.1,23,000/-. The complainant also filed Ex.A6 repairs estimation issued by Mahaboob Subhani Auto Motor Works. According to Ex.A6 an amount of Rs.2,35,470/- is required to get the vehicle repaired. The complainant did not place satisfactory evidence to show that he sustained loss of Rs.4,64,970/-. Both parties must give weight to the report of the final surveyor. The final surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,23,000/-. The complainant is entitled to the said amount.
9. 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., Original Driving License, Original Load Challan etc. The final surveyor submitted his report on 17-12-2007. The opposite party No.1 kept quite without issuing any notice to the complainant demanding the complainant to produce the above said documents till the complainant gave legal notice Ex.A1 dated 25-11-2009. No material is placed on record by opposite party No.1to show that it demanded the complainant to produce the required documents prior to 25-11-2009. The opposite party No.1 was negligent in settling the claim of the complainant. In the final surveyors report Ex.B3 the particulars of the Driving License of the driver, fitness certificate etc are noted. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 in keeping the claim of the complaint is pending for a long time.
10. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay damages of Rs.1,23,000/- to the complainant, with interest at 9% P.A from the date of the complaint i.e. 15-02-2010 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 1st day of April, 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 Office copy of legal notice dated 25-11-2009 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.
Ex.A2. Letter dated 02-12-2009 issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3 Reply notice dated 29-01-2010 issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of letter dated 22-12-2008 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of certificate of registration of vehicle
No.AP02 U 7889 issued by R.T.A Ananthapur.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Repairs estimate of Mahaboob Subhani Auto Works Old Guntakal.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Reply notice dated 29-01-2010 issued by
opposite party No.1.
Ex.B2 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.B3 Motor final survey report dated 17-12-2007.
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 :
