BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Saturday, 03rd May 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 35/ 2013
B. Nagalaxmi, W/o K. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu,
aged years, Residing at D.No. 20/998,
Co-operative Colony, Kadapa city. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
D.No. 4-1-327 to 337, 4th floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids Road,
Hyderabad – 500 001. ….. Respondent.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 28-4-2014 in the presence of Sri G.M.B. Murali Krishna, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- It is submitted that the complainant being owner of the vehicle i.e. Indica car bearing No. AP 36 TV : 1269 got the same being insured with the respondent’s company vide policy bearing No. 1812722338000024 by paying net premium amount of Rs. 14,055/-. The policy is valid from 16-4-2012 to 15-4-2013.
3. It is submitted that unfortunately on 4-7-2012 the said vehicle met with an accident near Siddavatam which resulted in its partial damage. After intimation of the incident, one surveyor by name M. Mohiddin Baig along with P.S. Khan visited the accident spot and subsequently as per their instruction the said car was shifted to P.S. Khan garage and assessed the loss at Rs. 1,11,690/-. Since the policy was in force at the time of the incident, covering the risk of the vehicle and since the complainant paid the net premium amount of Rs. 14,055/-, the respondent’s company being indemnifier is bound to make good the loss suffered to the complainant’s vehicle under the contract of indemnity. But, the respondent’s company addressed a letter dt. 25-12-2012 to the complainant rejecting the claim of her due to expiry of fitness certificate and the said fitness certificate was not insisted by the respondent either at the time of renewal of the insurance policy nor taking the photographs of the said car at the time of checking the road worthy condition of the car. At the time of original estimation estimated by the respondent’s company surveyor or any other insurance officials and also at the time of carrying out the repairs at garage not insisted fitness certificate and afterwards the respondent’s company came with a version that the said car was not having fitness certificate in order to evade the genuine claim of the petitioner. The respondent’s company has no right to deny the claim of the complainant. Rejecting the genuine claim of the complainant would certainly amount to deficiency of service for which the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony besides suffering from financial loss.
4. It is further submitted that the complainant has addressed a legal notice dt. 29-1-2013 calling upon the respondent herein to settle the claim of the complainant for damage caused to the vehicle i.e. car bearing No. AP 36 TV : 1269 and within a period of 7 days of receipt of the legal notice. The said legal notice was duly served to the respondent. Neither the claim is settled nor is any reply given by the respondent company. Hence, the complainant constrained to file this complaint.
5. The cause of action for this complaint arose on 4-7-2012 in Kadapa town when the complainant got the owner of the vehicle got the same being registered with the respondent’s company vide policy bearing No. 1812722338000024 by paying net premium amount of Rs. 14,055/- and the policy is valid from 16-4-2012 to 15-4-2013 and when on 4-7-2012 the said vehicle caught accident when the complainant intimated about the accident of the vehicle to the respondent when the vehicle was met with an accident resulting its damage, when the respondent’s company repudiated the claim of the complainant on erroneous and untenable grounds, on 29-01-2013 when the complainant se t a legal notice which was duly served upon the respondent but failed to comply with the same and in Kadapa where the incident of damage to the vehicle was occurred within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court. An I.P.O worth of Rs. 200/- is enclosed here with.
6. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble forum may be pleased to pass an order in favour of the complainant against the respondent as follows. (i) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,11,690/- towards damage of vehicle with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim till realization, (ii) to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service rendered by the respondent, (iii) to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of this complaint and (iv) to grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
7. Counter field by the respondent. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
8. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the petition, except those which are expressly admitted hereunder by this respondent.
9. It is further submitted that the complainant hypothecated her vehicle with State Bank of India of Warangal, who is the Financier of the complainant. Since the complainant did not add the financier as party to the proceedings, as required under IMT – 7, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this respondent company.
10. It is true that the complaint insured his vehicle with the respondent company under passenger carrying vehicle package policy under bearing No. 1812722338000024 for the period from 16-4-2012 to 15-4-2013. The complainant vehicle registered with registering authority Warrangal Motor cabs Warangal with seating capacity of 5 in all. As such the complainant vehicle is commercial vehicle. The copy of the policy is herewith filed, which may be marked as exhibit.
11. It is submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as defined U/s 2 (d) of consumer protection act, as such the complaint does not comes under the purview of consumer dispute as envisaged in section 2 (e) of the act. Hence, this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the contract of insurance does not comes under purview of the sale of goods act as defined U/s 2 (i). The vehicle is registered with RTA Warangal as passenger carrying vehicle. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble forum. True copy of registration certificate is herewith filed as document No. 2.
12. At the outset, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum as the complainant is insured his vehicle with this respondent under commercial vehicle policy. The complainant used her vehicle for transporting of passengers on commercial activities at the time of accident. As per the Chambers 20th century Dictionary “Commercial” denoted “pertaining to commerce”, it means “Connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim”. Hence, the complainant would not come under purview of the definition U/s 2 (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, it is clear that the complainant hiring the services to other on profit motive. Therefore, the complainant filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Hon’ble forum and ought to dismiss against this respondent company, as the complainant is not a consumer.
13. It is further submitted that the claim of complainant is repudiated by this respondent company on the ground that fitness certificate was expired on the date of accident. Hence, the vehicle has no fitness certificate as on the date of accident and the insured vehicle was not under road worthy condition as on the date of accident to run on public roads. Therefore repudiation is correct and cogent and the complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’bel forum. The copy of repudiation letter is herewith field as document No. 3.
14. It is further submitted that one K. Srinivasa Rao was the driver of the complainant vehicle as on the date of accident. He had driving license bearing No. DLFAP 03641182009 and he is authorized to drive Light motor vehicle non-transport and motor cycle with gear. The complainant vehicle is transport vehicle and the driver who was on the wheels had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The complainant knowingly entrusted her vehicle to the said driver who had no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against his respondent.
15. It is further submit that the averments mentioned para 2 & 3 of the complaint are false and the same is invented for the purpose of claim.
16. It is further submitted that his respondent company appointed an IRDA accredited licensed surveyor immediately after receiving the claim intimation from the complainant, who had submitted spot survey and final survey reports, assessing the liability, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, However, while processing the claim of the complainant it is found that the vehicle had no fitness certificate, so also the driver had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, thus repudiated the claim.
17. In the light of above mentioned circumstances it is clear that there was no deficiency of services on the part of the respondent company and on the other hand the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Hon’ble forum and ought to be dismissed against this respondent company with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.
18. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed by him or not?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents or not?
- To what relief?
19. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 to B8 were marked.
20. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is very clear that the complainant had obtained the policy for the vehicle i.e. Indica car bearing No. AP 36 TV : 1269. The policy bearing No. 1812722338000024 from respondent company under Ex. A1. As per complaint the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident near Sidhout, YSR District. The complainant had utterly failed to prove the accident near Sidhout. The complainant did not filed any FIR to prove the accident, it occurred near Sidhout town. Ex. A3 is the estimation copy for Rs. 1,11,690/-. Ex. A4 is the complainant had issued legal notice to the respondent. Ex. A5 is the postal receipt and courier receipt. Ex. A6 are the bills for repairs at various workshops. As per complaint the complainant clearly mentioned that the accident took place near Sidhout town but there is no single piece of evidence to prove that the accident took place at Sidhout. Here it is the burden of the complainant to prove that the accident took place near Sidhout but the complainant utterly failed. Ex. A7 clearly shows that there is no fitness certificate to the vehicle bearing No. AP 36 TV : 1269 and the fitness certificate is expired at the time of accident. So the respondent’s had repudiated the claim. The complainant in her complaint failed to prove the evidence of the vehicle. There is no whisper about the valid driving license of the driver. The complainant did not filed any piece of evidence to prove that the driver having valid license at the time of accident. Ex. A1 and Ex. B1 are the same policy issued by the respondent. Ex. B3 and Ex. A3 are the same. Ex. B6 clearly shows that the vehicle fitness certificate was expired on 10-2-2011 which was issued by the RTA, Warangal where the vehicle was got repaired. As per Ex. B7 it was very clear that the vehicle was registered at Warangal RTA. The vehicle was financed by S.B.I Warangal. Ex. B8 clearly shows that the driver is having only light motor vehicle, non-transport motor cycle with gear license only. As per Ex. B8 the driver is not eligible to drive the commercial vehicle. In which the complaint mentioned vehicle Indica car bearing No. AP 36 TV : 1269 was got insured with the respondent under commercial vehicle policy. So as seen from the evidence the complainant utterly failed to prove the accident near Sidhout. The complainant had failed to file the fitness certificate of the vehicle at the time of accident and utterly failed to prove the eligibility of the driver to drive the commercial vehicle of the complainant. All these circumstances the complainant is not eligible to pay compensation as prayed by her. At the same time there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.
21. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 03rd May 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of policy bearing No. 1812722338000024 issued by the respondent company.
Ex. A2 Photos 5 in Nos.
Ex. A3 P/c of estimation.
Ex. A4 P/c of legal notice dt. 29-1-2013.
Ex. A5 Postal receipt and courier receipt.
Ex. A6 Bills 9 in Nos.
Ex. A7 Repudiation letter dt. 25-12-2012.
Exhibits marked for Respondents: -
Ex. B1 Attested copy of policy copy issued by the responded.
Ex. B2 Claim form issued by the respondent copay.
Ex. B3 P/c of estimation of the damages sub mitted by the complainant.
Ex. B4 P/c of attested copy of survey and assignment details.
Ex. B5 P/c of attested copy of the repudiation letter, dt. 25-12-2012.
Ex. B6 P/c of fitness certificate issued by the RTA, Warangal.
Ex. B7 P/c of registration certificate bearing No. Ap 36 TV : 1269.
Ex. B8 of Driving license of Srinivasa Rao, issued by the RTA, Kadapa.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri G.M.B. Murali Krishna, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for respondent.
B.V.P. - - -
