Date of filing: 10.01.2013.
Date of disposal: 17.01.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Sri S. Sreeram, B.A., B.Com., B.L., Member
Friday, the 17th day of January, 2014
C.C.No.16 of 2013
Between:
Bolisetty Madhavi Rani, W/o Venkata Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, Rep: by GPA Holder Bolisetty Venkata Hanumantha Rao, S/o late Lakshmikanthaiah, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, R/o.D.No.4-7-63, Opp. Vegetable Market, Main Road, Repalle.
….. Complainant
And
1. The Manager (Claims) Branch, Bharathi AXA General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vijayawada – 10.
2. The Regional Manager (Claims), Bharathi AXA General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vijayawada – 10.
3. TATA Motors Finance Limited, Rep: by its Authorized Person, Thane – 400607.
4. Jasper Industries, Rep: by its Authorized Person, Vijayawada.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 03.01.2014, in the presence Sri P. Mohan Rao, advocate for complainant; Sri T. Veerabhadra Rao, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2; Sri Raghu Kumar Pamarthi, advocate for 3rd opposite party; Sri B.V.S.R. Prasad, advocate for 4th opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao,)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damage to the vehicle, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and to pay costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant had purchased a Tata Indica (Sic. Nano) car bearing No. AP 07 BH 4651 from the 4th opposite party on 10.1.2012 on taking finance from the 3rd opposite party. It was insured with opposite parties 1 and 2 company. The vehicle met with an accident on 24.7.2012 resulting damage to the bumper, engine, doors and front side part of the vehicle. They needed replacement. The vehicle was brought to the 4th opposite party on 30.7.2012. The 4th opposite party prepared an estimate for repairs. The surveyor of the opposite parties 1 and 2 had inspected the vehicle on 30.7.2012. But the opposite parties did not show interest to pay the amount for damage caused to the insured vehicle. The complainant made repeated requests and also got a legal notice issued. There was no compliance. So this complaint is filed.
3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint and further stating that the accident to the complainant’s vehicle took place on 24.5.2012 and not 24.7.2012, that the complainant sent intimation on 25.7.2012 making false statement that accident took place on 24.7.2012; that the surveyor appointed by the 1st opposite party had inspected the damaged vehicle on 30.7.2012 and he reported that the damaged panels are corroded and that the accident took place on 24.5.2012; that the 1st opposite party sent letter to the complainant on 6.9.2012, 14.9.2012 and 23.9.2012 asking the complainant to confirm as to why they cannot repudiate the claim; that the complainant did not respond to the letters, that in an arbitration proceedings between the 3rd opposite party and the complainant an interim direction was given to deliver possession of the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party; and that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 as the complainant made false statement as to date of accident, and as there was delay of two months in sending information to the opposite parties 1 and 2.
4. The 3rd opposite party filed its version stating as follows:
There is no consumer dispute between the complainant and 3rd opposite party. There is no deficiency on the part of the 3rd opposite party. The complainant took a loan of Rs.1,78,861/- as finance from the 3rd opposite party for purchase of car. The complainant agreed to pay interest of Rs.68,147/- and agreed to repay the total amount in 59 EMIs at the rate of Rs.4,100/- The complainant was irregular in payment of EMI. The vehicle is under hypothecation with the 3rd opposite party. Since the complainant became defaulter, the 3rd opposite party is entitled to receive amounts from the insurance company. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The 4th opposite party though appeared through advocate, did not choose to file version or affidavit.
6. The complainant has filed affidavit of her GPA holder as deposition of PW.1. Authorized representative of 3rd opposite party filed his affidavit which is received as deposition of DW.1. Later the Senior Claims Specialist of 2nd opposite party filed affidavit as deposition of DW.2. Exs.A1 to A19 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs.B1 to B7 are marked on behalf of the 3rd opposite party. Exs.B8 to B23 are marked on behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all the parties. The complainant and the 3rd opposite party had filed written submissions.
8. The points that fall for determination are:
- Whether there is deficiency in rendering service by the opposite parties 1 to 4?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the amounts claimed?
- What relief can be giving by this Forum?
Point No.1:
9. The complainants vehicle insured with the opposite parties 1 and 2 insurance company met with an accident. The vehicle was brought to the dealer 4th opposite party and a claim is made to the insurance company basing on the estimate given by the 4th opposite party dealer-service centre. The complainant seems to have taken delivery of the vehicle after repairs, but does not make such statement. The insurance company did not accept the claim on the ground of false information and delay in giving intimation.
10. In the complaint it is specifically noted that the accident took place on 24.7.2012, intimation was given to insurance company and claim was made on 30.7.2012. No whisper is made that the accident took place on 24.5.2012 or that intimation was given immediately to the insurance company or that again at the instance of the opposite parties 1 to 3 papers was submitted two months later as if the accident took place on such later date. This contention, seems to have been raised through a report given to police on 28.6.2013 under Ex.A15. That report was given about one year after the accident and long after an arbitrator passing interim order on 14.2.2013 for delivery of possession of the hypothecated vehicle to the 3rd opposite party. The contents of Ex.A15 are self contradicting. It refers to handing over car to finance company 14 months earlier, but again refers to threatening demand made on 28.6.2013 for delivery of car or for payment. The copies of job card filed by the 2nd opposite party show that the vehicle was brought to the 4th opposite party work shop on 24.5.2012, but not on 24.7.2012 or 30.7.2012 as noted in the complaint. Estimate delivery bill was for Rs.1,54,944/- vide Ex.B12 and not for Rs.50,000/- as claimed in the complaint. The complainant does not say when she took delivery of the vehicle from the work shop. Ex.B12 and B13 job cards show the estimate delivery date as 10.6.2012. The complainant has not filed the bills given by the 4th opposite party for effecting repairs. They would show the probable date of completing repairs to the vehicle.
11. According to Ex.A15 report, the opposite parties 1 to 3 took papers from the complainant again two months after the accident and two months after this happening the complainant paid instalments to the finance company. That means the complainant had paid two instalments after 24.7.2012. This statement is proved false by Ex.A12 bank statement of account. It shows that last instalment was paid on 9.7.2012.
12. The complainant had presented written arguments in Telugu and signed by the complainant personally on 30.7.2013. The date of accident is noted as 24.7.2012, but in the latter paragraph it is noted that car was handed over on 24.5.2012 and two sets of documents were given on 24.5.2012 and 24.7.2012. If the second set was given on 24.7.2012 and surveyor had inspected the vehicle on 30.7.2012, why the complainant asked the bank on 31.7.2012 to stop payment of cheques issued to the financier as certified in Ex.A14 endorsement. It is not the case of the complainant that the relation between the complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 became stained by 30.7.2012. We are unable to agree with the contention of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the complainant gave false statement and false date of accident to the insurance company and had unnecessarily delayed intimation to the insurance company. Therefore the insurance company is justified in not accepting the claim. No deficiency is spoken to as to repairs effected by the 4th opposite party. No details are given as to any deficiency on the part of the finance company. Therefore we hold that the complainant failed to show deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4.
Points 2 and 3:
13. In view of the answer on point no.1 the complainant is not entitled to the amounts claimed. Since the complainant made false statement in the complaint itself we feel it proper to impose costs on the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 being the insurance company and not found to be at fault are entitled to costs. The 3rd opposite party the financing company had filed Ex.A7 a list of rejected receipts. It refers to 9 dishonoured cheques between 2.7.2012 to 2.3.2013. The reason for rejection shown in the last column as funds insufficient as per the bank statement for six cheques and payment stopped by the drawer for three cheques. The cheques covered by the Ex.B7 bear the Nos. 269335 to 269340 and 268741 to 268743. The complainant filed an endorsement under Ex.A14 issued by the bank where under the bank had informed that the complainant had given stop payments for 16 cheques. They include all the cheques covered by Ex.B7. When stop payment instructions were given to the bank and the finance company came to know of it on 2.8.2012 there is no fun of the finance company presenting the cheques subsequently knowing that the bank was instructed to stop payments. On each of these cheques charges were collected at Rs.400/- or Rs.450/- as per Ex.B6. Therefore we are not inclined to award costs to the 3rd opposite party. Since the 4th opposite party did not contest no costs need be allowed to the 4th opposite party. We therefore hold that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are entitled to costs assessed at Rs.2,000/-.
14. In the result this complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to the opposite parties 1 and 2 together, within one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to steno, N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 17th day of January, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
Complainant’sGPAholder–PW-1. Authorized Representative of
(by ffidavit) OP.3-DW-1; (by affidavit); Senior
Claims Specialist of OP.2
(by affidavit).
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Photocopy of motor insurance claim form.
Ex.A2 06.09.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A3 14.09.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A4 Photocopy of registration certificate.
Ex.A5 14.11.2012 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OPs
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A7 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A8 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A9 Postal receipt.
Ex.A10 12.01.2012 Copy of letter issued by Sudhakar.Y and visiting card.
Ex.A11 14.09.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A12 Photocopy of bank pass-book.
Ex.A13 Photocopy of 2 Form “TCR”.
Ex.A14 Photocopy of to who so ever certificate.
Ex.A15 28.06.2013 Photocopy of report issued by complainant to CI, Repalle Town.
Ex.A16 Copies of courier receipts (3).
Ex.A17 Postal card, railway tickets (2), cash memo and two letters .
Ex.A18 05.02.2013 Photocopy of loan recall notice.
Ex.A19 14.02.2013 Photocopy of arbitration order.
On behalf of the opposite party no.3:
Ex.B1 Photocopy of loan cum hypothecation agreement.
Ex.B2 Photocopy of Tata Motor Finance Ltd., contract details.
Ex.B3 13.03.2013 Photocopy of repayment schedule.
Ex.B4 13.03.2013 Photocopy of Tata Motor Finance Ltd., repayments.
Ex.B5 13.03.2013 Photocopy of Tata Motor Finance Ltd., receipt information.
Ex.B6 13.03.2013 Photocopy of Tata Motor Finance Ltd., expense details.
Ex.B7 13.03.2013 Photocopy of Tata Motor Finance Ltd., rejected receipts.
On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2:
Ex.B8 14.02.2013 Photocopy of Arbitration order.
Ex.B9 14.02.2013 Photocopy copy of notice of arbitration proceedings.
Ex.B10 05.02.2013 Photocopy of loan recall notice.
Ex.B11 24.05.2012 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B12 24.05.2012 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B13 24.05.2012 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B14 23.09.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.B15 14.09.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.B16 06.09.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.B17 23.08.2012 Photocopy of e-mail
Ex.B18 30.07.2012 Photocopy of motor claim notification.
Ex.B19 24.07.2012 Photocopy of motor insurance claim form.
Ex.B20 Photocopy of driving license.
Ex.B21 Photocopy of registration certificate.
Ex.B22 Photocopy of motor vehicle insurance proposal and covernote.
Ex.B23 Photocopy of insurance policy.
PRESIDENT
