The Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan V/S Sahera Parveena W/o. Late Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/76

Sahera Parveena W/o. Late Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. B.S. Patil

08 Feb 2011

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/76

Sahera Parveena W/o. Late Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan The Manager, Shriran General Insurance Company Ltd., Bangalore The Manager, Sriram General insurance Company Ltd., Raichur The Manager, Sriram Transport Finance & GIC Company ltd.,Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sahera Parveen against Opposites 1 to 4 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay the repair charges of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 1,96,158/- with interest and cost and for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, her husband Allabakasha @ Md. Baksha was the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 26/U5915 it was insured with opposite No. 1 & 2 Insurance Company and Insurance policy was in force from 06-12-08 to 05-12-09 vide Policy bearing No. 10003/31/09/016187. On 29-11-09 on Gajendragad- Ron Public Road at about 7-00 PM, when her husband was driving the said lorry it met with an accident and in the said accident her husband died. The lorry badly damaged, police complaint was filed and thereafter, she intimated the fact of accident to the opposites Insurance Company. They appointed surveyor and the said surveyor assessed the loss, thereafter she got repaired the lorry by spending an amount of Rs. 1,96,158/-. She filed claim petition with all necessary records, but Opposite Nos. 1, 2 & 4 in collusion with opposite No-3, not settled the claim of the complainant, in spite of several, oral and written requests, thereafter this complaint was filed by her for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. Opposite No-3 & 4 are placed Ex-parte. 4. Opposite No-1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed their written version by admitting the ownership of Allabaksha coverage of Insurance policy, accident, damages to the vehicle, claim petition filed by the complainant etc., It is contended by them that, surveyor was appointed to assess the loss due to damage caused to the vehicle. Total assessment made by the surveyor is of Rs. 85,239/-. The same was paid to complainant she executed discharge cum satisfaction voucher in favour of Insurance company. The complainant came to Forum with malafide intention to get monetary benefit by suppressing the real facts, she is not a consumer, the consumer complaint filed by her is not maintainable and it denied all other allegations and prayed for to dismissal of the complaint among other grounds with costs. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, her husband owns a lorry bearing No. AP 26/U5915 and on 29-11-09 on Gajendragad-Ron Public Road met with an accident and the said lorry badly damaged in the accident, she got repaired the lorry by spending an amount of Rs. 1,96,158/- in Raichur thereafter she filed claim petition but, opposite No. 1, 2 & 4 Insurance Company not settled her claim in collusion with opposite No-3 Financier inspite of her repeated oral and written requests and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, she noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26 are marked. Written argument filed. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Legal Officer of the Sriram Insurance Company was filed, she was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked. 8. In view of the pleadings of the parties, their respective evidences and documents. Some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties are:- 1. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant is the wife of deceased Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha who was the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP26/U5915. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, the said lorry was insured with opposite Nos. 1, 2, & 4 Insurance Company for a period from 06-12-08 to 05-12-09 vide Policy bearing No. 100063/31/09/016187. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, the said lorry met with an accident on 29-11-09 in between Gajendragad Ron Public Road while Insurance Policy was in force. 4. It is also undisputed fact that, in the said accident complainants husband Allabaksha died. 9. In view of the said undisputed facts between the parties We have not referred related documents of the parties, in respect of accident, vehicle Insurance policy, driving licence etc., 10. The first contention of opposite No. 1 & 2 in resisting this complaint is that, after hearing the news of accident, Insurance Company appointed surveyor, who inspected the spot and lorry, assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 99,000/- vide survey report at Ex.R-1. The Insurance of the vehicle was covered vide policy Ex.P-6 to the extent of Rs. 1,98,000/- surveyor assessed the net loss to the extent of Rs. 85,239/- by deducting salvage and less compulsory bill. These facts are not that much of importance for our purpose, but document Ex.R-2 is material to see as to whether, the present complaint is maintainable which is a claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher. 11. As per the case of Insurance Company opposite Nos. 1, 2, & 4 was paid an amount of Rs. 85,239/- to the complainant as per the surveyor report and after receipt of the said amount, complainant executed Ex.R-2 claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher, as such Insurance Company has not committed any deficiency in its service. This fact was not revealed by the complainant in her complaint with an intention to get wrongful monetary benefit from Insurance Company. In support of this submission the learned advocate for Insurance Company relied on ruling reported in United India Insurance Company V/s. Ajmeer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Others, reported in 1999 STPL (LE) 26573 SC. 12. In pursuance of the submissions made by the learned advocate for Insurance Company, we have gone through the facts noted in the above case. In the said case the Honble Supreme Court discussed, regarding the execution of discharge voucher and the other circumstances pleaded by the complainant in execution of such discharge voucher. 13. In the instant case, complainant has not pleaded and evidenced any of the fact that, she executed or not executed discharge voucher Ex.R-2 in favour of the Insurance Company by receiving the amount mentioned it. She not made any allegations against Insurance Company with regard to execution of Ex.R-2. Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that, the facts of the present case are similar to the facts noted in the above said case, as such we are of the view that, the learned advocate for Insurance Company is right enough to say that, complainant filed this false complaint by suppressing material facts to get monetary benefit from the Insurance Company. Nothing is out coming from the written arguments of the complainant in this regard. Some of the facts noted in written arguments of the complainant are with regard to illegal seizure of the vehicle by opposite No-3 and taking signature in blank papers and vouchers by opposite No-3 are all not pleaded and not evidenced. Hence those arguments are not taken into consideration by us. Other allegations of complainant regarding collusion of opposite No-3 and Insurance Company is also not established in view of Ex.R-2, as the execution of it, not denied by her in her complaint, accordingly we are of the view that, complainant failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service by any one of the opposites and thereby she is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint., accordingly we answered Point Nos-1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 14. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 08-02-2011) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sahera Parveen against Opposites 1 to 4 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay the repair charges of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 1,96,158/- with interest and cost and for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, her husband Allabakasha @ Md. Baksha was the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 26/U5915 it was insured with opposite No. 1 & 2 Insurance Company and Insurance policy was in force from 06-12-08 to 05-12-09 vide Policy bearing No. 10003/31/09/016187. On 29-11-09 on Gajendragad- Ron Public Road at about 7-00 PM, when her husband was driving the said lorry it met with an accident and in the said accident her husband died. The lorry badly damaged, police complaint was filed and thereafter, she intimated the fact of accident to the opposites Insurance Company. They appointed surveyor and the said surveyor assessed the loss, thereafter she got repaired the lorry by spending an amount of Rs. 1,96,158/-. She filed claim petition with all necessary records, but Opposite Nos. 1, 2 & 4 in collusion with opposite No-3, not settled the claim of the complainant, in spite of several, oral and written requests, thereafter this complaint was filed by her for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. Opposite No-3 & 4 are placed Ex-parte. 4. Opposite No-1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed their written version by admitting the ownership of Allabaksha coverage of Insurance policy, accident, damages to the vehicle, claim petition filed by the complainant etc., It is contended by them that, surveyor was appointed to assess the loss due to damage caused to the vehicle. Total assessment made by the surveyor is of Rs. 85,239/-. The same was paid to complainant she executed discharge cum satisfaction voucher in favour of Insurance company. The complainant came to Forum with malafide intention to get monetary benefit by suppressing the real facts, she is not a consumer, the consumer complaint filed by her is not maintainable and it denied all other allegations and prayed for to dismissal of the complaint among other grounds with costs. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, her husband owns a lorry bearing No. AP 26/U5915 and on 29-11-09 on Gajendragad-Ron Public Road met with an accident and the said lorry badly damaged in the accident, she got repaired the lorry by spending an amount of Rs. 1,96,158/- in Raichur thereafter she filed claim petition but, opposite No. 1, 2 & 4 Insurance Company not settled her claim in collusion with opposite No-3 Financier inspite of her repeated oral and written requests and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, she noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26 are marked. Written argument filed. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Legal Officer of the Sriram Insurance Company was filed, she was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked. 8. In view of the pleadings of the parties, their respective evidences and documents. Some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties are:- 1. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant is the wife of deceased Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha who was the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP26/U5915. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, the said lorry was insured with opposite Nos. 1, 2, & 4 Insurance Company for a period from 06-12-08 to 05-12-09 vide Policy bearing No. 100063/31/09/016187. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, the said lorry met with an accident on 29-11-09 in between Gajendragad Ron Public Road while Insurance Policy was in force. 4. It is also undisputed fact that, in the said accident complainants husband Allabaksha died. 9. In view of the said undisputed facts between the parties We have not referred related documents of the parties, in respect of accident, vehicle Insurance policy, driving licence etc., 10. The first contention of opposite No. 1 & 2 in resisting this complaint is that, after hearing the news of accident, Insurance Company appointed surveyor, who inspected the spot and lorry, assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 99,000/- vide survey report at Ex.R-1. The Insurance of the vehicle was covered vide policy Ex.P-6 to the extent of Rs. 1,98,000/- surveyor assessed the net loss to the extent of Rs. 85,239/- by deducting salvage and less compulsory bill. These facts are not that much of importance for our purpose, but document Ex.R-2 is material to see as to whether, the present complaint is maintainable which is a claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher. 11. As per the case of Insurance Company opposite Nos. 1, 2, & 4 was paid an amount of Rs. 85,239/- to the complainant as per the surveyor report and after receipt of the said amount, complainant executed Ex.R-2 claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher, as such Insurance Company has not committed any deficiency in its service. This fact was not revealed by the complainant in her complaint with an intention to get wrongful monetary benefit from Insurance Company. In support of this submission the learned advocate for Insurance Company relied on ruling reported in United India Insurance Company V/s. Ajmeer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Others, reported in 1999 STPL (LE) 26573 SC. 12. In pursuance of the submissions made by the learned advocate for Insurance Company, we have gone through the facts noted in the above case. In the said case the Honble Supreme Court discussed, regarding the execution of discharge voucher and the other circumstances pleaded by the complainant in execution of such discharge voucher. 13. In the instant case, complainant has not pleaded and evidenced any of the fact that, she executed or not executed discharge voucher Ex.R-2 in favour of the Insurance Company by receiving the amount mentioned it. She not made any allegations against Insurance Company with regard to execution of Ex.R-2. Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that, the facts of the present case are similar to the facts noted in the above said case, as such we are of the view that, the learned advocate for Insurance Company is right enough to say that, complainant filed this false complaint by suppressing material facts to get monetary benefit from the Insurance Company. Nothing is out coming from the written arguments of the complainant in this regard. Some of the facts noted in written arguments of the complainant are with regard to illegal seizure of the vehicle by opposite No-3 and taking signature in blank papers and vouchers by opposite No-3 are all not pleaded and not evidenced. Hence those arguments are not taken into consideration by us. Other allegations of complainant regarding collusion of opposite No-3 and Insurance Company is also not established in view of Ex.R-2, as the execution of it, not denied by her in her complaint, accordingly we are of the view that, complainant failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service by any one of the opposites and thereby she is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint., accordingly we answered Point Nos-1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 14. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 08-02-2011) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.