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 22nd day of February , 2011
C.C.No 46/10
Between:
B.Linga Reddy, S/o. B.Aswartha Reddy,
H. No. 16-1286, Srinivasa Puram, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District-515 411.
…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 Finance Co. 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 V.V.Augustine, 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. 46/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite party No.1:-
(a) To pay Rs. 78,500/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 25-04-2007 till the date of realization.
- Grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony;
- Grant the cost of the complaint;
(e) Grant any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 02 W 5135. 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.411300/31/2007/15377 in favour of the complainant. The said policy was in force from 11-11-2006 to 09-11-2007. On 25-04-2007 the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident. The same was informed to the opposite parties. The complainant later 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 assessed the loss at Rs.78,500/- The opposite party No.1 did not pay the said amount to the complainant inspite of several demands. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 16-09-2009 to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the said notices and gave replies with falls allegations. There is deficiency of service in settling the claim by the opposite party No.1. Hence the complaint.
3. opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Opposite party No.1 is the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP02 W5135. The opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No. 411300/31/2007/15377 in favour of the complainant. It was in force from 10-11-2006 to 09-11-2007. On receipt of intimation of accident, the opposite party No.1 appointed Sri K.S.Chiranjeevi as spot surveyor. He submitted his report to opposite party No.1 on 30-04-2007, Sri.B.P.K.Reddy was appointed as final surveyor. He assessed the loss at Rs.78,500/-. The claim of the complainant was not settled for want to vital documents. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Hence 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 gave Financial Assistance to the complainant to purchase the vehicle. All the documents received from the complainant were forwarded to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is liable to settle the claim. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 and B4 are marked and sworn affidavit of Senior Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool is filed. Opposite party No.2 also filed sworn affidavit.
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 Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(c) To what relief?
7. POINT No.1 & 2: It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP02 W 5135 and said vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.1. The complainant in support of his contention that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP02 W 5135 relied Ex.A3 copy of registration certificate. In Ex.A3 it is mentioned that B.Linga Reddy is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP02 W 5135. Admittedly the opposite party No.1issued the copy of Ex.A1 policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/15377 in favour of the complainant in respect of vehicle bearing No.AP02 W 5135. The policy was in force from 10-11-2006 to 09-11-2007. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 25-04-2007. The complainant did not file the copy of F.I.R. and charge sheet to show that the vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 25-04-2007. According to the opposite party No.1 after receiving the intimation of accident, a spot surveyor was appointed and he filed his report on 30-04-2007. It is not the case of the opposite party No.1 that the vehicle of the complainant was not damaged in the accident. It is also the case of the opposite party No.1 that final surveyor was appointed and that he submitted his report on 18-05-2007. Opposite party No.1 has not chosen to file the final report of the surveyor. In the sworn affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 it is clearly mentioned that the final surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.78,500/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the claim of the complainant could not be settled as he filed to submit the vital documents required by opposite party No.1. Mere failure on the part of complainant to submit the document, is not a ground to dragon the matter. Admittedly the complainant prior to the filling of this complaint got a notice issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 received the said notice but it did not settle the claim of the complainant. What load was there in the vehicle at the time of the accident, is nothing to do with the settlement of the claim by the insurer. The opposite party No.1unnecessarly delayed the settlement of the claim. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.
8. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay damages of Rs.78,500/- to the complainant with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint i.e 25-11-2009 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 500/-. 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 22nd day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
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 Policy No.411300/31/2007/15377.
Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice dt.16-09-2009 along with
postal receipt and ack.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Registration Certificate of the
vehicle No. AP02 W 5135.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of National Permit dt.24-11-2006
Ex.A5 Reply letter of the OP NO.1 dt. 06-10-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Reply letter by OP1 dt.06-10-2009 addressed to
K.Mallaiah, Advocate, Kurnool.
Ex.B2. Letter dt.16-02-2009 from OP NO1 to complainant.
Ex.B3 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.B4 Claim form submitted by the complainant.
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 :
