9 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 1^st day of April, 2011

C.C.No 54/10

Between:

J.Babu, S/o. J.Gurrappa,

H.No. 41-51, Kotha  Peta,  Kurnool District-518 001.                                         

…Complainant

                                        -Vs-

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

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

2. The Branch Manager,Shriram Transport and 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 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. 54/10

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.30,000/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 15-11-2006 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;

1. 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.AP21 V 7323.  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 the policy bearing No. 411300/31/2007/13095 in favour of the complainant, in respect of the lorry bearing No.AP21 X 7323.  The policy was in force from 06-11-2006 to 05-11-2007.  On 15-11-2006 the vehicle of the complainant is damaged in the accident near Gamjal.  Immediately after the accident the complainant informed the same   to opposite parties.  The complainant also submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  The surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.30,000/-.  Opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant inspite of several demands.  The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on                16-11-2009.  The opposite parties received the said notices.  Opposite party No.1 did not give any reply.   Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that the complainants lorry bearing No.AP21 V 7323 was issued with opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 has no knowledge about the alleged accident dated 15-12-2006.  The complainant did not give any intimation about the accident to opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 came to know about the alleged accident only through legal notice got issued by the complainant.  Opposite party No.1 gave a reply notice informing the true facts.  Opposite party No.1 was not informed about the alleged accident.  No surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1.  The complainant did not submit the claim through opposite party No.2.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy there must be immediate intimation about the accident to the insurer.   The claim of the complaint is barred by limitation.  As the complainant filed the present complaint beyond three years from the date of the accident.

        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 A3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 and B2 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:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by time.
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(c)                To what relief?

7.      POINT No.1 :  It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 V 7323 and the same is insured with opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 in its written version stated that the lorry of the complainant AP21 V 7323 was insured with it under policy No.411300/31/2007/13095 for the period from                       06-11-2006 to 05-11-2007.  It is the specific case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 15-11-2006 and it was damaged in the said accident.  The present complaint is filed on              15-02-2010.  According to the complainant his claim is pending with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 denied that the complainant submitted his claim to it through opposite party No.2.   Had opposite party No.2 submitted the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1 there must be some record.  Opposite party No.2 produce no record to show that it submitted the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.2 no where in its written version stated the date on which it forwarded the alleged claim form of the complainant to opposite party No.1.   Absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the claim of the complaint is pending with opposite party No.1.    For the first time the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 16-11-2009 to opposite party No.1.  Mere issuance of legal notice does not extended the period of limitation.  The period of limitation is two years for filing the complaint from the date of cause of action.  According to complainant the accident took place on 15-11-2006.  The cause of action commenced from                  15-11-2006. The complaint is filed on 15-02-2010 beyond the period of limitation.   The complaint is barred by time.  

8.     Points 2 and 3:-        According to he complainant his vehicle met with an accident on 15-11-2006 and that opposite party No.1 appointed surveyors to estimate the loss caused to the vehicle.  According to opposite party No.1 that it was not informed about the accident by the complainant and no surveyor was appointed by it to estimate the loss.  The complainant did not place any documentary evidence like F.I.R. to show that his vehicle met with an accident on 15-11-2006.  The opposite party No.2 filed Ex.B2 copy of the final survey report dated 16-12-2006.  Admittedly no relief is asked against opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 is a formal party.  The complainant also filed Ex.A1 photo copy of reinspection report dated 26-01-2007.  It is mentioned in Ex.B2 that G.Venkat Prasad Reddy is the final surveyor.  Opposite party No.2 did not choose to file the affidavit evidence of the said G.Venkat Prasad Reddy to establish that he was appointed as final surveyor by opposite party No.1.  It is also mentioned in Ex.A1 that one Sri.S.Mohan Reddy surveyor reinspected the vehicle on 10-01-2007.  Inspite of denial by opposite party No.1 that no surveyor was appointed, the complainant  did not take steps to examine Sri S.Mohan Reddy the surveyor who is said to have reinspected the vehicle on 10-01-2007.  Merely basing on the photo copy of final survey report Ex.B2 it cannot be safely concluded that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 15-11-2006 and that opposite party No.1 appointed surveyors to estimate the loss.  The complainant failed to establish that his vehicle met with an accident and that his claim is pending with opposite party No.1.  If really the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on                   15-11-2006 it is not know as to why the complainant kept quite without issuing the legal notice to opposite party No.1 till 16-11-2009.  No negligence on the part of opposite party No.1is proved.  As the claim of the complainant is not pending with opposite party No.1, the question deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1does not arises.

9.     In result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 1^st 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        Photo copy of Re-Inspection Survey Report

dated 26-01-2007.

Ex.A2.       Office copy of legal notice, dated 16-11-2009 along with acknowledgement.

Ex.A3                Reply notice of opposite party No.2 dated 20-11-2009.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1        Reply notice issued by opposite party No.1

dated 02-12-2009

Ex.B2                Photo copy of final survey report dated 16-12-2006.

         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               :