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

Wednesday the 23^rd day of February , 2011

C.C.No 47/10

Between:

S.Vannur Saheb, S/o. S.Vannur Saheb,

H.No. 4-102-2, Kummari Doddi Street, Owk Post and Mandal, Kurnool District- 518 122.                      

 …Complainant

                                           -Vs-

1. The Divisional Manager,Divisional Office III (CBU),Oriental Insurance Company Limited,   

    Rosy Towers, 2^nd floor, No.7,Nungabakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.

2. The Branch Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited,

    H.No.40-581-A, 2^nd 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. 47/10

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.1,98,380/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 05-03-2009 till the date of realization. 

1. To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony;

1. To pay the cost of the complaint;

 (e)   To 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 21 W 3414.  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.411300/31/2009/424 in favour of the complainant.  The said policy was in force from 03-05-2008 to 02-05-2009.  On 06-03-2009 the vehicle of the complainant is damaged in the accident that took place near Kanaka Durgamma Varadhi, Vijayawada.  Immediately the complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties.   Later 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 to a tune of Rs.1,98,830/-.  Inspite of repeated demands, opposite party No.1 not paid the assessed amount.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 03-11-2009 to the opposite parties.  Opposite party No.1 did not give any reply.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 in settling the claim.  Hence the complaint.

3.     opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The lorry bearing No.AP21 W 3414 met with an accident.  Opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No.411300/31/2009/424 in favour of the complainant.  The said policy was in force from 03-05-2008 to 02-05-2009.  After receipt of the intimation of accident, Sri Madhu Babu was appointed as spot surveyor.  Opposite party No.1 also appointed Sri.K.Sivaji as a final surveyor to assess the loss.  The final surveyor assessed the loss to a tune of Rs.30,500/-.  The complainant submitted his claim with out his signature on it.  The complainant filed to submit vital documents like R.C and permit.  For the legal notice got issued by the complainant.  Opposite party No.1 gave a reply.  The claim was not settled due to non-cooperation of the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1. 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 only a financier.  It is opposite party No.1, who is liable to pay the amount to the complainant.   Opposite party No.2 forwarded all the documents received from the complainant to opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.2 is nothing to do, with regard to the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant. 

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to 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:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

1. 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 a owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 W 3414 and the same was insured with opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 filed Ex.B3 copy of the insurance policy bearing No.411300/31/2009/424 wherein it is mentioned that the vehicle bearing registration No.AP21 W 3414 was insured and that the policy was in force from 03-05-2008 to                         02-05-2009.  It is also mentioned in Ex.B3 that the complainant is the insured under the policy.  It is the specific case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident at Kanaka Durgamma Varadhi, Vijayawada, and that the opposite party No.1appointed spot surveyor after receiving the intimation about the accident.  The opposite party No.1 is not disputing about the damage of the complainant’s vehicle in the accident.  In Ex.B3 it is mentioned that the accident took place at Kanaka Durgamma Varadhi, Vijayawada.  The complainant claims damages of Rs.1,98,830/-.  The complainant filed Ex.A2 copy of estimation issued by mechanic R.D.R. Industries, Vijayawada.  The complainant did not choose to file sworn affidavit of any persons connect to R.D.R Industries.   Admittedly a final surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1 to assess the actual loss caused to the complainant.  Opposite party No.1 filed Ex.B4 report of the final surveyor by name Sri K. Sivaji.  The final surveyor recommended the net loss of Rs.30,500/-.  The report of the final surveyor must be given due weight.  Opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the said amounts to the complainant. 

8.     It is the case of the complainant that he submitted his claim form to opposite party No.1 and that opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim inspite of several demands. Admittedly prior to the filling of the present complaint, the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A4 to the opposite parties.  Opposite party No.1 received the said notice and gave Ex.B1 reply.  For the first time opposite party No.1 in its written version stated that vital documents like R.C and permit were not produced, to settle the claim.  It is admitted by opposite party No.1 that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle.  The spot surveyor after verifying the documents, mentioned in his report that the damaged vehicle stands in the name of the complainant and that he also paid tax.  To settle the claim the documents required by opposite party are not at all necessary.  Even after receiving the legal notice opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim immediately.  There was delay in settling the claim by opposite party No.1. It amounts to deficiency of service on the party of opposite party No.1.

9.     In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay damages of Rs.30,500/- to the complainant with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint i.e 24-11-2009 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 23^rd 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 Motor claim form

Ex.A2                Photo copy of Estimation copy.

Ex.A3         Photo copy of Spot survey report dt.07-03-2009.

Ex.A4         Office copy of legal notice dt.13-11-2009 along with

postal receipt and ack.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:

Ex.B1                Reply letter by OP1 dt.25-02-2010 addressed to

K.Mallaiah, Advocate, Kurnool.

Ex.B2.       Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.B3                Photo copy of Policy Insurance No.411300/31/2009/424.

Ex.B4                Motor final survey report dt.11-05-2009.

             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   :