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 42/10
Between:
V.Nagamani, S/o. Sanjeeva Rayudu,
H.No.2-378, Atmakur-518 422, 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 Co. Limited,
H.No.25-557-1, 1st Floor, Sanjeeva Nagar, Nandyal - 518 501 Kurnool District.
. …Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Shivaji Rao, 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. 42/10
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. 86,180/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 06-07-2007 till the date of realization.
- Grant a sum of Rs.13,000/- 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 vehicle bearing No. AP 21W 2524. 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.411300/31/2007/15224 in favour of the complainant. The said policy was in force from 03-12-2006 to 02-12-2007. On 06-07-2007 the vehicle was damaged in the accident near Alur Bridge, Guntakal. After the accident, the complainant intimated the same to the opposite parties. The surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1. estimated the loss of Rs.86,180/-. Opposite party No.1 not paid the assessed amount inspite of repeated request. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 06-10-2009 to the opposite parties. Opposite parties received the said notices and gave replies with false allegations. There is deficiency of service in settling the claim on the part of 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 issued policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/15224 in favour of the complainant. The said police was in force from 03-12-2006 to 02-12-2007. Opposite party No.1 received on intimation about the alleged accident on 24-07-2007. Hence the opposite party No.1 could not appoint spot surveyor to assess the damage. Opposite party No.1 appointed final surveyor. He assessed the loss at Rs.86,180/-. Opposite party No.1 offered to settle the claim at 75% of the assessed value. The claim was not settled due to non submission of necessary documents by the complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled to the amount. 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 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 A7 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 and B2 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 a owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 2524. The complainant in his sworn affidavit has stated that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 2524. He also filed Ex.A1 in support of his contention. In the registration certificate Ex.A1 it is mentioned that Y.Nagamani, who is the complainant here in, is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 2524. Admittedly the said vehicle is insured with opposite party No.1. Ex.A2 is the copy of the policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/14225. The policy was in force from 03-12-2006 to 02-12-2007. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 06-07-2007and the same was intimated to the opposite parties. The complainant in his sworn affidavit has stated that damage was caused to his vehicle in the accident that took place on 06-07-2007. The complainant did not choose to file any document to show that his vehicle met with an accident on 06-07-2007. Opposite party No.1 not seriously denied about the accident to the vehicle of the complainant. Admittedly opposite party No.1 appointed one Sri B.R.K.Reddy as final surveyor and he submitted his report in Ex.B2. The final surveyor in his report Ex.B2 has stated that net loss assessed by him is Rs.84,000/-. The opposite party No.1 is ready and willing to pay 75% of it subject to condition of producing the required documents. According to the opposite party No.1, the complainant did not submit load challan and tax paid details. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the said particulars were furnished to the final surveyor at the time of his inspection of the vehicle. In Ex.B2 the final surveyor has stated that the tax was paid up to 30-09-2006. The opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant in spite of legal notice Ex.A5 dated 06-10-2009 got issued by the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1
8. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay damages of Rs.84,000/- 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 Certificate of Registration issued by
R.T.O Nandyal.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Policy No.411300/31/2007/15224.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of permit of the vehicle No. AP 21W2524.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of National Permit vehicle NO.AP21 W2524.
Ex.A5 Office copy of legal notice dt.6-10-2009.
Ex.A6 Reply notice of OP1 dt. 21-10-2009.
Ex.A7 Reply notice of OP2 dt. 26-10-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Reply notice of OP1 dt. 21-10-2009.
Ex.B2. Motor final survey report dt.06-09-2007.
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 :
