pBEFORE 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
Monday the 21st day of February, 2011
C.C.No 41/10
Between:
G.C. Chennaiah, S/o. Prasad,
H.No.1-112, Kondajutur Village, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
- The Divisional Manager,Divisional Office III (CBU),Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rosy Towers, 2nd floor, No.7,Nungabakkam High Road,Chennai-600 034.
2. The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport and Finance Co. Ltd.,
H.No.2-414 A, 1st Floor, TTD Road, Opp. Raj Theatre, Nandyal – 518 501, Kurnool District.
…Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Sivaji 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. 41/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite parties:-
(a) To pay Rs.70,829/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 23-01-2008 till the date of realization;
(b) Grant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony;
(c) Grant the cost of the complaint;
- 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 tractor bearing No. AP 21K 8586. The opposite party No.1 is the insurer of the said vehicle. The opposite party No.2 is the financier of the said vehicle. Opposite party No.1 issued policy bearing No.411300/31/2009/2446 in favour of the complainant. The policy was in force from 13-07-2008 to 12-07-2009. On 23-12-2008 the vehicle of the complainant is damaged in the accident and panyam P.S. registered a case. Immediately after the accident the complainant informed about it to the opposite parties. The complainant submitted claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. The surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim inspite of several demands. The complainant also got issued legal notice to the opposite parties. The delay in the settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency of service. 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 tractor bearing No.AP21 K 8586. Opposite party No.1 issued insurance policy in favour of the complainant. On receipt of intimation of accident to tractor bearing No.AP21 K 8586, opposite party No.1 appointed spot surveyor. The spot surveyor submitted his report to opposite party No.1. Later opposite party No.1 appointed Sri P.Srinivasula Reddy licensed surveyor to carry out final survey of the damaged tractor. The final surveyor submitted his report dated 04-09-2009 lately. He assessed the loss to a tune of Rs.10,051/-. The claim of the complainant is pending for non submission of original repairs and labour bills. The opposite party No.1 send a reply notice for the legal notice got issued by 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 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 A12 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.
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 tractor bearing No.AP21 K 8586 and the same is issued with opposite party No.1. The complainant to show that he is the owner of the tractor bearing No.AP21 K 8586 filed Ex.A1 copy of certificate of registration. Admittedly opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A2 insurance policy. The said policy was in force from 13-07-2008 to 12-07-2009. It is further case of the complainant that his tractor which was insured with opposite party No.1 met with an accident on 23-12-2008 and it was partly damaged. The complainant filed Ex.A5 copy of the charge sheet where in it is mentioned that on 23-12-2008 the tractor of the complainant met with an accident and due to said accident the tractor was partly damaged. Admittedly after the accident the complainant informed about the accident to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 appointed spot surveyor. It is also admitted by opposite party No.1 that one Sri P.Srinivasula Reddy was appointed as a final surveyor. He filed his report Ex.B1. In Ex.B1 report it is mentioned that net loss is Rs.10,051/-. Even after the final report submitted by the surveyor, opposite party No.1 did not try to settle claim. The delay in settling the claim by opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency of service.
8. It is the case of the opposite party No.2 that it is only a financier and that it is unnecessarily added in this case. Admittedly it is the insurance company which is liable to pay the damages to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 is not a necessary party. Opposite party No.2 is unnecessarily added in this case. The opposite party No.1 is liable to pay amount of Rs.10,051/- as assessed by the final surveyor.
9. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant damages of Rs.10,051/- with interest at 9% per annum 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 21st day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
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.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of motor insurance certificate
cum policy schedule.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of driving license of Y.Ramasubbaiah.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of police complaint dt.24-12-2008.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of police charge sheet dt.30-12-2008.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Fine receipt dt.30-12-2008.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of motor claim form.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of accident reporting format dt.29-12-2008.
Ex.A9 Photo copy of Invoice dt.04-01-2009.
Ex.A10 Photo copy of Quotation dt.26-12-08.
Ex.A11 Photo copy of legal notice dt.18-11-2009.
Ex.A12 Reply notice of OP2 dt.20-11-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Motor final survey report dt.04-09-2009.
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 :
