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 55/10

Between:

S.Murthuja Vali, S/o. Allabakash,

H.No.1/80/21M, Krishan Singh Veedhi, Athmakur, Kurnool District.     

                    …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. 50-760a-113-2, 1^st Floor, Durga tractors upstairs, Gayathri Estate, Kurnool, Kurnool - 518002.

            …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. 55/10

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.99,200/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 16-04-2008 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 a owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 5304.  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. 411300/31/2008/2086 in favour of the complainant.  The policy was in force from 09-05-2007 to 08-05-2008.  On 16-04-2008 the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident Near Brahmanakotkur Village, Kurnool District.  Brahmanakotkur police registered a case. After the accident the complainant informed about it to the opposite parties. The complainant 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.99,200/-.  As opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant, he got issued a legal notice dated 16-11-2009.  Opposite party No.1 received the said notice but 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 policy in favour of the complainant in respect of his vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 5304.  The said policy was in force from                09-05-2007 to 08-05-2008.  Opposite party No.1, not received the claim form and other documents from opposite party No.2.  After receiving the intimation about the accident opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor to conduct spot survey.   Another surveyor was appointed to do final survey and report.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  The final surveyor did not furnish his report as the complainant did not produce his vehicle for post inspection after completion of repair works.  He did not submit the cash bills for purchase of spare parts and labour work under taken.   The delay in settling the claim is purely due to failure of complainant in furnishing relevant documents.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of 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 and A2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 is 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 there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

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

(c)                To what relief?

7. POINT No.1 & 2: It is admitted that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 5304 and the same was insured with opposite party No.1 under the insurance policy bearing No.411300/31/2008.2086.  The policy was in force from 09-05-2007 to 08-05-2008.  It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 16-04-2008 and it was partly damaged.  Admittedly prior to the filing of the complaint the complainant gave a legal notice to the opposite parties.  Ex.A1 is the copy of the said notice.  The first opposite party having received the said notice gave a reply Ex.B1, admitting that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 16-04-2008.  It is also admitted by the opposite party No.1 that after receiving the intimation about the accident it appointed spot surveyor by name Kaleemullah and final surveyor Narayanaswamy.  

8.     It is the case of the complainant that he submitted his claim along with necessary documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 and that opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim.  According to the opposite party No.1 no claim form was received from the complainant through opposite party No.2 and that the final surveyor did not file his report as the complainant filed to produce his vehicle for post inspection.  Except the affidavit evidence of the complainant there is no material on record to show that the complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant document to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 as a financier.   Had opposite party No.2 submitted the claim of the complainant to the opposite party No.1 there must be some record in office of opposite party No.2.  No documentary evidence is produced by opposite party No.2 to establish that it submitted the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.2.  There is also no mention in the complaint the date on which the complainant submitted his claim to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  Admittedly the complainant not placed any documentary evidence to show that he purchased the spare parts and got his vehicle repaired.  Had the complainant got his vehicle repaired he must be in possession of at least the copies of the original bills showing the purchase of spare parts.  The complainant is not entitled to any amount unless it is shown that he spent the amount to carry on the repairs of the damaged vehicle.  Inspite of the denial of the opposite party No.1, that the bills were not submitted the complainant did not choose to file the copies of the cash bills showing the purchase of the spare parts.  No negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 is established.  On the other hand it is the complainant who is at fault.  It is not the case of the complaint that after inspection of the vehicle by the final surveyor he sent the purchase bills along with claim form to opposite party No.1.  It is not shown that the complainant produced the vehicle before the final surveyor for post inspection.  For the leaches on the part of the complainant, opposite party No.1 cannot be blamed.  No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

10.    In result, the complaint is dismissed.  In the circumstance of the case 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        Office copy of legal notice dated 16-11-2009 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.

Ex.A2.       Reply notice from opposite party No.2 dated 22-11-2009.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of letter dated 25-02-2010 issued by

opposite party No.1.

          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               :