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
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
C.C.No 49/10
Between:
R.Ram Mohan, S/o. R.Seetha Ramaiah,
H.No. 7/4, Main Bazar, Peapully Post and Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager,Divisional Office III (CBU), The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rosy Towers, 2nd floor, No.7, Nungabakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.
2. The Branch Manager,Shriram Transport and Finance Company 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 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. 49/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,92,750/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 12-12-2007 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;
- 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 X 3586. 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. 411300/31/2008/1385 in favour of the complainant and it was valid from 20-04-2007 to 19-04-2008. On 12-12-2007 the vehicle of the complainant is damaged in the accident at Gattur Village, C.K.Pally Mandal, Ananthapur District. Immediately after the accident the complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties. The complainant also submitted claim along with relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. The surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.1,92,750/-. Opposite party No.1 not settled the claim of the complainant inspite of several demands. On 06-10-2009 the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 gave a reply notice with false allegations. Opposite party No.1 is trying to avoid payment of the claim stating that the complainant not submitted all the documents. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. One Raja Ram Mohan R is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 X 3586. Opposite party No.1 issued the policy in favour of said Raja Ram Mohan R. The complainant is not the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 X 3586. Immediately after receiving the intimation about the accident the opposite party No.1 appointed one V.M.Abu as spot surveyor and Y.Nizamuddin as final surveyor. The final surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.75,503/-. Inspite of reminders the complainant failed to submit necessary documents such as Fitness Certificate, Original Loan Challan ect,. There is no negligence on the part of opposite party No.1. The complainant is barred by limitation. 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 A7 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:
- Whether the complaint is barred by time.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.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 X3586 and that the said lorry met with an accident on 12-12-2007. Admittedly opposite party No.1 issued policy Ex.A1 in respect of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 X 3586. The said policy was in force from 20-04-2007 to 19-04-2008. Opposite party No.1 in its reply notice Ex.B1 dated 23-10-2009, admitted that the vehicle bearing No.AP21 X 3586 met with an accident and that the opposite party No.1 issued policy in respect of the vehicle AP21 X 3586. It is also admitted that after the accident the complainant submitted his claim and that the said claim was pending with opposite party No.1. It is the case of opposite party No.1 that the accident took place on 12-12-2007, that the complainant is not failed with in 2 years from the date of accident and it is barred by time. Admittedly the accident took place on 12-12-2007. The claim of the complainant is pending with opposite party No.1. The period of limitation starts from the date of repudiation of the claim by the insurer. As the claim of the complainant is pending with opposite party No.1, the contention of the opposite party No.1 that the complaint is barred by time cannot be accepted. The complaint is well in time.
8. Points 2 and 3:- It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 X 3586. According to the opposite party No.1 one Raja Ram Mohan R is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 X 3586 and that the complainant is not the owner. The complainant filed Ex.A2 registration certificate where in it is mentioned that the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 X 3586 is Ram Mohan R S/o R.Seetha Ramaiah of Peapully. In policy Ex.A1 it is mentioned that the Raja Ram Mohan R S/o Seetha Ramaiah of Peapully Village is the insured. The fathers name and the address of the complainant and insured are one and the same. Merely because Raja is not noted ahead of Ram Mohan R in Ex.A2 it cannot be said that the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle. The complainant and the insured are not two different persons. As already stated there is no dispute about the accident and damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant on 12-12-2007. It is also admitted by opposite party No.1 that after the accident the complainant submitted the claim.
9. According to opposite party No.1 the claim was not settled as the complainant failed to submit the relevant documents. Admittedly opposite party No.1 did not issue any notice to the complainant demanding to produce the documents required. For the first time the opposite party No.1 in its reply notice dated 23-11-2009 mentioned that the claim of the complainant was not settled for want of the documents such as load Challan, reinspection report etc. The documents that are mentioned Ex.B1 are not material to settle the claim of the complainant. Admittedly opposite party No.1 appointed a spot surveyor and he submitted his report Ex.A3. The spot surveyor verified the driving particulars of the driver, registration certificate of the vehicle. He also mentioned the nature of the accident in Para-7 of his report Ex.A3. Ex.B2 is the final surveyors report. The final surveyor also verified R.C and Permit of the vehicle. He assessed the liability of the insurer at Rs.75,503/-. Both parties must give weight to the report of the final surveyor. The complainant could not establish that he sustained the loss at Rs.1,92,750/-. As seen from the final surveyors report the liability of the insurer is limited to Rs.75,503/-. Inspite of the final surveyors report opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant. There was delay in settling the claim by opposite party No.1. Deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite party No.1
10. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing opposite party No.1 to pay damages of Rs.75,503/- to the complainant, with interest at 9% P.A from the date of the complaint i.e 24-11-2009 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 500/-. The 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 31st day of March, 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 Motor Insurance Policy No.411300/31/2008/1385.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Certificate of Registration of vehicle
No.AP21 X 3586 issued by R.T.O. Kurnool.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Private and Confidential Motor survey report dated 16-12-2007.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Naresh Kumar Body Builders & Labour works.
Ex.A5 Letter dated 06-10-2009 issued by opposite party No.1 by the complainant counsel.
Ex.A6 Posta receipt, dated 06-10-2009.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of reply notice, dated 23-10-2009 issued by complainants counsel by the opposite party No.1.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of reply notice of, dated 23-10-2009 issued to complainants counsel by the opposite party No.1.
Ex.B2 Letter dated 15-02-2009 of Y.Nizamuddin, Surveyor and Loss Assessor.
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 :
