BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM :KURNOOL

President :S ri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.com, B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Pil., Male Member

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Friday the 11^th day of March, 2011

C.C.No.81/10

Between:-

S. Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. S. Venkateswarlu,

H.No.3-3, Gajulapally Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Kurnool District.        

                    …..…Complainant

-Vs-

1. The Divisional Manager,Divisional Office VIII, The National Insurance Company Limited,

    Mamanji Centre, II Floor, Thiru -vi-ka Industrial Estate, Post Box No.3162, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

2. The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport and Finance Company Limited,

    H.No. 2-414 A, 1^st 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 M.Shivaji Rao, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri K.Muralidhar, Advocate for opposite party No.1and Sri. N.Guru Shankaraiah, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

        ORDER

     (As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

           C.C. No. 81/10

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.75,000/-towarda damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident to i.e. 16-12-2004 till the date of realization.

1. To grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony;

1. To grant the cost of the complaint;

 (d)   To grant any other reliefs 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 vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 2448.  Opposite party No.1 is the insurer and opposite party No.2 is the financier of the said vehicle.  Opposite party No.2 issued policy bearing No.04/6327573 in favour of the complainant.  The said policy was in force from 08-11-2004 to 07-11-2005.  The vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident that took place on 16-12-2004.  The complainant immediately informed about the accident to the opposite party.  Later the complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents to the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  The surveyor estimated the loss at Rs.75,000/-.  Opposite party No.1 did not pay the assessed amount to the complainant inspite of several demands.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 17-11-2009 to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties received the said notices.  Opposite party No.1 did not give any reply.  Hence the complaint.     

3.     The opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant is to prove that opposite party No.1 insured the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 2448 and issued insurance policy.  The complainant is to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 2448 and said vehicle met with an accident on 16-12-2004.  The complainant is to establish that the driver of the said vehicle had valid driving license at the time of the accident.  There was no dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite party No.1.  The claim was abandoned by the insured by his own action by not submitting required documents.  The complainant not complied the requirements.  The complainant is barred by time.  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 is marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1to B3 are marked and sworn affidavit of Senior Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool is filed.  Opposite party No.2 also filed sworn affidavit.

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 Party?

1. 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. AP21 W 2448 and the same was insured with the opposite party No.1.  The first opposite party denied that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 2448 and it was insured by it.  The complainant did not choose to file the registration certificate of the vehicle to establish that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 2448.  The complainant did not file at least copy of the policy said to have been issued by opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 filed Ex.B1 copy of the policy which stands in the name of the complainant.  The said policy covers the risk of the new vehicle manufactured by TATA Company.  The said policy was in force from 14-12-2004 to 13-12-2005.  The particulars mentioned in Ex.B1 do not tally with the particulars given by the complainant in his complaint and sworn affidavit.  Except the affidavit evidence of the complainant there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 W 2448, that it was insured by opposite party No.1and that the police was in force from 08-11-2004 to 07-11-2005.  It is also the case of the complainant that his vehicle met with an accident on 16-12-2004, that in the said accident his vehicle was damaged and that opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor on intimation.  The complainant did not choose to produce any documentary evidence to establish that his vehicle met with an accident on 16-12-2004 and in the said accident the vehicle was damaged.  Had the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and damaged in the said accident there must be F.I.R. and Charge Sheet.  The complainant no where in his sworn affidavit has stated the place where the accident took place and the Crime No. of the case registered against the driver of the vehicle.  It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that documents were sent to opposite party No.1 along with claim form.  The complainant has not choose to file at least the copies of the relevant documents to establish that his  vehicle met with an accident on 16-12-2004 and that the surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1.   In the absence of documentary evidence that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident, the contention of the complainant that a surveyor was appointed by opposite party No.1 cannot be believed at all.  No doubt in the written version filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1, it is mentioned in para 4 that the complainant not submitted the required documents even though it called for the said documents.  Merely basing on the said pleading it cannot be presumed that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 16-12-2004 and it was damaged.  Nothing prevented the complainant to mention the place of the accident and the Crime No. of the case registered.  It is also the duty of the complainant establish that the driver of the accident vehicle was having valid driving license at the time of the accident.  The complainant in this sworn affidavit no where stated the name of the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. 

8.     It submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 that the complainant has made a false claim in this complaint at belated stage to gain wrongful.  Absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that opposite party No.1 appointed a final surveyor to assess the loss.  There is also no material on record to show that the complainant got his vehicle repaired by spending an amount of Rs.75,000/-.  There is no material to show that opposite party No.1appointed a final surveyor and he assessed the loss at Rs.75,000/-.  According to the complainant he got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties and that opposite party No.1 did not choose to give any reply.  The complainant did not choose to file he acknowledgement showing the receipt of the notice got issued by the complainant.  Had the accident took place on 16-12-2004 it is not known as to why the complainant kept quite without giving legal notice to the opposite party No.1 with a request to settle the claim at an earliest point of time.  Had the complainant submitted his claim to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 there must be some evidence in the office of the opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2also did not place any record to show that it received the claim form from the complainant and it was sent to opposite party No.1.  The complaint is barred by time.  It is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  No deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 is proved by the complainant.  It appears the present complainant is filed to make wrongful gain by chance.  The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

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 11^th 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                Office copy of legal notice dated 17-11-2009.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- 

Ex.B1          Policy bearing No.501602/31/04/6300027573.

        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       :