`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
Monday the 7th day of March, 2011
C.C.No 43/10
Between:
S.Jeelan Baha, S/o. Abdul Rasheed,
H.No. 7-224-B, Bhagya Nagar, Guntakal Post and Mandal, Ananthapur 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.18/343/8, Opp. 2 Town Police Station, Adoni - 518 301.
…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. 43/10
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.1,84,250/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 10-04-2007 till the date of realization;
(b) To grant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- 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 a owner of the lorry bearing No.KA34 D 5589. 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. 411300/31/2007/3376 in favour of the complainant. The policy was in force from 28-05-2006 to 27-05-2007. The vehicle of the complainant is damaged in the accident that took place on 10-04-2007. The complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor. He assessed the loss at Rs.1,84,250/-. The complainant submitted the claim to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim in spite of several demands. The complainant got issued legal notice on 15-10-2009. 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 opposite party No.1 issued insurance policy bearing No.411300/31/2007/3376 in favour of the complainant in respect of the lorry bearing No.KA34 D 5584. After receiving the intimation about the accident the opposite party No.1 appointed Sri Rajender Giri as spot surveyor. He submitted his report to opposite party No.1 on 28-05-2007. Subsequently opposite party No.1 could not appoint the final surveyor for carrying out final survey, as the complainant did not intimate the place of workshop where the damaged vehicle was parked for repairs. The complainant submitted the claim to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 with out vital documents. In the complainant it is not mentioned any where the name of the workshop where the repairs were carried out to the vehicle. 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 A13 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B4 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 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 the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA34 D 5589. The complainant in his sworn affidavit lorry has stated that he is the owner of the said vehicle. Opposite party No.1 filed Ex.B4 certificate of registration where in it is mentioned that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA34 D 5589. Admittedly the opposite party No.1 issued Ex.A4 copy of the Insurance Policy bearing No. 411300/31/2007/3376 in respect of the lorry of the complainant bearing No.KA34 D 5589. The said policy was in force from 28-05-2006 to 27-05-2007. It is further case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 10-04-2007 near Kalghatagi. Opposite party No.1in his reply notice Ex.B1 admitted that the vehicle bearing No.KA34 D 5589 met with an accident on 10-04-2007. Admittedly after receiving the intimation of accident the opposite party No.1 appointed a spot surveyor by name Sri.Rajendra Giri. He filed his report Ex.A7. In spot surveyor report Ex.A7 the particulars of the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant is clearly mentioned.
8. It is also admitted that the complainant submitted the claim to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. According to the opposite party No.1, the claim of the complainant could not be settled as no final survey was carried out as the complainant did not inform the place of the workshop where the repairs were carried out to the vehicle. The complainant nowhere in his complaint mentioned the place where the repairs were carried out to his vehicle. The opposite party No.2 filed Ex.B3 status report, dated 14-07-2007 of the surveyor by name T.Peddaiah. It is mentioned in Ex.B3 that the name of the repairer is M/s Mohideen Welding Works, Guntakal. It is further mentioned in Ex.B3 that M/s Shriram Finance Adoni Branch gave instructions to the surveyor. It is not known if T.Peddaiah is an insurance surveyor. It is also not known whether he made final surveyor with the knowledge of the insurer who is the opposite party No.1. The complainant filed Ex.A9 quotation issued by Mohideen Welding Works for Rs.1,96,275/-. The complainant did not choose to file the affidavit of the person connected to Ex.A9 quotation. As already stated there is material on record to show that the vehicle of the complainant was partly damaged in the accident that took place on 10-04-2007. The complainant must have incurred some loss. Merely because the opposite party No.1 could not appoint final surveyor, the claim of the complainant cannot rejected in total. In Ex.B3 status report it is mentioned that the approximate liability of the insurer is Rs.60,000/-. In Ex.B3 it is also mentioned that reinspection was completed by 17-05-2007.
9. The accident took place on 10-04-2007. The complainant submitted his claim to the opposite party No.1. According to the opposite party No.1, the claim was not settled as the complainant filed to submit the vital documents like R.C, Tax paid details etc. In Ex.A7 spot survey reports the details about the Permit and Registration No. of the vehicle were furnished. Admittedly opposite party No.1 did not give any notice to the complainant damaging him to produce the required documents. The complainant gave a legal notice on 15-10-2009 (Ex.A11). For the first time opposite party No.1 in its reply dated 11-11-2009 got it mentioned that Original R.C., copy of the F.I.R., Load Challan etc were not submitted. There is abnormal delay in settling the claim of the complainant. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.
10. In result, the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay damages of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint i.e 26-11-2009 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 7th day of March, 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 permit of the vehicle No.KA34 D 5589.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Tourist permit, dated 18-06-2004.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of National Permit.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Insurance Policy No.411300/31/2007/3378.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of driving license.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of panchanama, dated 10-04-2007.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Spot Survey Report, dated 28-05-2007.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of Photos of the vehicle.
Ex.A9 Photo copy of Quotation, dated 18-04-2007.
Ex.A10 Photo copy of Motor Claim Form.
Ex.A11 Office copy of legal notice dated 15-10-2009.
Ex.A12 Reply notice of opposite party No.2, dated 19-11-2009.
Ex.A13 Reply notice of opposite party No.1, dated 11-11-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Reply notice of opposite party No.1, dated 11-11-2009.
Ex.B2 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Status Report, dated 14-07-2007.
Ex.B4 Photo copies of certificate of Registration & Certificate of fitness KA32 D 5589.
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 :
