Andhra Pradesh

Cuddapah

CC/08/53

G.Pavan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sri V.Dharma Kumar

25 Nov 2008

ORDER


District Consumer Forum
Collect orate Compound, Kadapa
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/53

G.Pavan Kumar
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Manager
2)The Branch Manager
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. B. Durga Kumari 2. Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao 3. Sri.S.A.Khader Basha

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. G.Pavan Kumar

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. The Manager 2. 2)The Branch Manager

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Sri V.Dharma Kumar

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA

PRESENT: SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

                             SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

 

Tuesday, 25th November 2008

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  53 / 2008

 

 

G. Pavan Kumar, S/o Veer Bhadraiah,

Residing at D.No. 69/102, Post Office Street,

Rayachoty, Kadapa district.                                                ….. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.  Manager, Oriental Insurance co. Ltd.,

     Rogi Towners, II Floor, No. 7, Nungam Bakkam High Way road,

     Chennai.  

2.  The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

     Dwaraka complex, 1st floor, Opp. District Court,

     Kadapa.                                                                          ….. Respondents 

 

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 19-11-2008 in the presence of Sri V. Dharma Kumar, Advocate, for complainant and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for Respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R

(Per Sri S. Abdul Khader Basha, Member),

 

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-  The complainant is the owner of the TATA Lorry bearing No.AP04-T-3718 and he insured the same with the Respondent’s company for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 14-5-2005 under policy No.2006/2701 and the said policy was in force from 14-5-2005 to 13-5-2006 and the respondents company had indemnified the risk of owner  of the vehicle i.e., Complainant in respect of the said lorry in the event of any unforeseen events occurred to the same while the policy was in subsistence.  While so on 20-1-2006 the above said TATA Lorry met with an accident and it got badly damaged. Immediately after the incident the same was informed by the complainant to the Respondents company and on 22-02-2006 the Respondent company had sent one authorized Surveyor to the spot to assess the damage caused to the vehicle and later the damaged vehicle was shifted to the garage and the owner of the garage estimated the damage caused to the lorry as of Rs.1,49,387/- and later the Respondent company surveyor reduced the estimation of damage to Rs.1,08,840/- from Rs.1,49,387/-.Then the complainant has submitted a claim along with required papers by requesting the respondent company to release the amount of Rs.1,08,840/- as estimated by Respondent company Surveyor towards vehicle damage as per terms and conditions of said policy.  But so far the Respondents Company has not settled the claim of the Complainant in spite of his several oral demands and repeated demands by way of legal notices. Surprisingly the Respondent Company gave a reply notice dt. 14-11-2007. Stating that as per the assessment of the final Surveyor the claim was assessed for Rs.60,000/- and the same was paid to the financier of the Complainant M/s. Sriram Transport and Finance Company Limited vide cheque No.124609 dated:15-6-2007,on the no objection letter of this Complainant.  The Complainant never gave any such no objection letter to the Respondents company.  In fact this Complainant had no dues to the said finance company.  Without prejudice to the case of  Complainant even  if there was any dues to the finance company payable by this Complainant, it is not the duty of the respondents company to pay compensation amount to the said company in the absence of written request of this complainant. As  stated above this Complainant had not given any written or oral request to the respondents Company to pay the compensation amount to the finance company.  Then the Complaint gave a final legal notice dated:20-12-2007 to the Respondent Company stating that he never gave no objection certificate letter in written or oral to pay the claim amount to the financier. In spite of said notice the Respondent Company neither paid the claim amount towards vehicle damage to this Complainant nor gave any reply.  Hence the complainant. Since the complainant has insured his vehicle with the respondent company and the vehicle got damaged due to accident while the policy was in force it is the bounden duty of the Respondent company to pay sum of Rs.1,08,840/- towards vehicle damages as assessed by their authorized Surveyor, but it did not do so in spite of his repeated demands and that there is a deficiency of service on the part of Respondent company.  Due to the deficiency in services of Respondent company the Complainant suffered with great mental agony and monetary loss.  It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble District Forum may be pleased to direct the Respondent company to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,840/- along with interest towards vehicle damage and compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards mental agony along with costs in the interest of justice.

 

3.                The respondents filed a counter denied the allegations stating  that the complainant is the owner of the Tata lorry bearing No. AP 04 T : 3718 and the same is insured with respondents company for the vehicle value of Rs. 2,00,000/- on            2-5-2005 under policy No. 2006 /2701 and for the period from 14-5-2005 to  13-5-006 for the own damages of the vehicle.  The respondents humbly submit that the on the intimation about the accident dt. 20-2-2006 the respondents immediately appointed spot surveyor Y. Nizamuddin and subsequently final survey was conducted by T.Gangadhar Prasad for the assessment of the actual damages.  As per the assessment of the final surveyor the claim was assessed for Rs.60,000 and the same was paid to the financier of the complainant, M/s Sriram Transport and Finance Co. Ltd., vide cheque No. 124609,dt.15-6-2007, as the complainant has given no objection certificate letter in writing to pay the claim to the financer. Thus as per the request of the complainant the respondents paid the claim amount to the financier. No amount is due from the respondents to the complainant.  The respondents humbly submit that settlement will not be on the basis of estimated amount. The allegation that the respondents company has not settled the claim of the complainant in spite his several oral demands and repeated demands by way of legal notices etc., all false and invented for purpose of this case. The respondents company informed the complainant vide letter dt.14-11-2007 about the act of settlement and no  dues from the company, in response to the notice dt.9-10-2007 issued on behalf of the complainant by his counsels Mr.K.Eswaraiah, V.Parthasaradi and K.Janardhan, Advocates, Rayachoty.  The allegation that the complainant never gave any such objection letter to the respondents company is false. The further allegation that in fact this complainant had no dues to the said finance company is false. The allegation that without prejudice to the case of complainant even if there was any dues to the finance company payable by this complainant even if there was any dues to the finance company payable by this complainant, it is not the duty of the respondents company to pay compensation amount to the said company in the absence of written request of this complainant is misleading and not tenable under law.  The respondents humbly submit that as per the request of the complainant only the company has paid the amount to the complainant’s finance company.  The respondents humbly submit that the complainant is having knowledge of settlement. After settlement of the claim now the complainant is resorting to litigation saying that he has not requested the respondents to pay the settlement amount to his financier. The respondents humbly submit that the complainant is estopped by his own conduct and he has no right whatsoever, to file this complaint. There is no any deficiency of services of service on the part of the respondents.  Therefore, the respondents humbly pray that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs in the interest of justice.

 

4.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

ii.                 To what relief?

 

5.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A12 were marked.  On behalf of the respondents Ex B1 to B3 were marked.   Oral arguments were heard from both sides. 

6.                Point No. 1 Ex. A1 is the Xerox copy of certificate cum policy in respect of vehicle bearing No. Ap 04 T ; 3718 valid from 14-5-2005 to 13-5-2006 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- issued by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,.  Ex. A2 is the carbon copy of legal notice dt. 20-12-2007 addressed to R1 and Sriram Investment Ltd., Vijay6awada.  Ex. A3 is the Xerox copy of letter from Advocate of the complainant addressed to R1, dt. 22-11-2007.  Ex. A4 is the carbon copy of legal notice dt. 9-10-2007 addressed to R1.  Ex. A5 is the original letter of the R1 addressed to V. parthasaradi, Advocate of the complainant.  Ex. A6 is the Xerox coy of motor cycle accident report in respect of the vehicle bearing No. AP 04 T ; 3718.  Ex. A7 is the certified copy of FIR No. 11/2006 of Gounapalli Police station, Karnataka State.  Ex. A8 is the Xerox copy of cash bills.  Ex. A9 are four original postal receipts.  Ex. A10 are five postal acknowledgements.  Ex. A11 is the Xerox copy of certificate of registration in respect of vehicle bearing No. AP 04 T : 3718.  Ex. A12 is the original extract of hire purchase register of Sriram Group companies.   Ex. B1 is the Xerox copy of Ex. A5.  Ex. B2 is the postal acknowledgements and Ex. B3 is the original no objection letter of the complainant addressed to the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai.

 

7.                As could be seen from the documentary evidence the complainant took a loan of Rs. 2,48,000/- from Sriram Group of companies on 25-10-2003 towards purchase of lorry bearing No. AP 04 T : 3718 valid up to 13-5-2005.  The vehicle was insured with R1 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the policy Ex. A1 which is in force from 14-5-2005 to 13-5-2006.   On 20-2-2006 the said vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged.  It is the case of the complainant that the respondent company sent a surveyor, who estimated the damages at Rs. 1,08,840/- as against Rs. 1,49,387/- estimated by garage owner towards the damages.  The complainant contended that the respondent had not paid the sum of Rs. 1,08,840/- as assessed by their surveyor.  On the other hand the respondents contended that the complainant voluntarily gave no objection letter Ex. B3 to R1 and that as per Ex. A5, Ex. B1 and  basing on Ex. B3 the respondent No.1 have made the claim amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the financier and this amount of Rs. 60,000/- was the final assessment as per the surveyor Sri T. Gangadhar Prasad as such no amount is due from the respondent to the complainant and that the respondents denied all the allegations made by the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that Ex. A12 is true extract of ledger of hire purchase register indicating full details that specks about his case.  On perusal of this document it indicates that an amount of Rs. 2,48,000/- loan was taken towards purchase of the lorry and this has to be cleared in 30 equal installments.  As on  25-5-2005 up to 24 installments  have been paid amounting to Rs. 2,39,400/- as against the loan of Rs. 2,48,000/-.  The date of receipt column in the ledger is kept blank for 6 installments ranging from 25-11-2005 to 25-4-2006 which is unexplainable by the complainant.  Even according to  Ex. A12 the loan amount taken by the complainant from the financier is not cleared as many as 6 installments @ Rs. 8,270/- p.m are still due.  The complainant denied the payment of Rs. 60,000/- by R1 to the financier and there is an entry for    Rs. 59,000/- on 15-9-2006.  The learned counsel for the respondent says that this Rs. 59,000/- is the proceeds of cheque of Rs. 60,000/- sent by R1 to the financier.  The difference of Rs. 1,000/- is the deduction of incidental charges by the financier/bank.  

 

8.                It is very strange how the registering authority transferred the vehicle and issued Ex. A11 duplicate certificate of registration when there are dues to the financer by the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the signature on Ex. B3 (no objection letter of the complainant) is forged one. To support his contention he relied on the decision 1988 (1) L.S. 516 a case between Pathivada Narayanaswamy Vs Gaulocha Pannalal Sowcar & another in which the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the court also empowered to compare the hand writtings / signatures of parties under section 73 of Indian Evidence Act and came to its conclusion and that in the given citation the District Judge with a view to serve the ends of justice took recourse to section 73 and compared disputed signatures.   In terms of this citation this Forum compared the signatures of the complainant found on Ex. B3 and that of the signatures found on the complaint as well as proof affidavit and found that almost identical to each other.  When the signature on Ex. B3 has resemblances and tallied with those signatures found on the complaint and proof affidavit it has to be concluded that the complainant has given no objection certificate Ex. B3 to the financier to discover this fact the complainant ought to have added the financier as necessary party or he might have taken steps to summon the financer in support of his contention that he has not given Ex. B3 which according to him  is a forged document.  The complainant thoroughly failed to adduce evidence on this aspect. The payment of  Rs. 60,000/- on the basis of final assessment of the surveyor by the R1 to the financer appears to be true in view of the above circumstances.  There are no merits in the complaint of the complainant as such he deserves no consideration in his favour. 

 

9.                Point No. 2.  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 25th November 2008

 

 

 

 
MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 
 
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    :       NIL                                            For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

 

Ex. A1         X/c of certificate cum policy in respect of vehicle bearing

No. AP 04 T : 3718.

Ex. A2         Carbon copy of legal notice dt. 20-12-2007 addressed to R1 and Sriram

Investment Ltd., Vijay6awada. 

Ex. A3         X/c of letter from Advocate of the complainant addressed to R1,

dt. 22-11-2007. 

Ex. A4         Carbon copy of legal notice dt. 9-10-2007 addressed to R1. 

Ex. A5         Original letter of the R1 addressed to V. Parthasaradi, Advocate of the

complainant. 

Ex. A6         X/c of motor cycle accident report in respect of the vehicle bearing

No. AP 04 T ; 3718. 

Ex. A7         Certified copy of FIR No. 11/2006 of Gounapalli Police station,

Karnataka State. 

Ex. A8         X/c of cash bills. 

Ex. A9         Four original postal receipts. 

Ex. A10       Five postal acknowledgements. 

Ex. A11       X/c of certificate of registration in respect of vehicle bearing

No. AP 04 T : 3718. 

Ex. A12       Original extract of hire purchase register of Sriram Group companies.  

 

Exhibits marked for Respodnents : -         

 

Ex. B1         X/c of the R1 addressed to V. Parthasaradi, Advocate for the

complainant. 

Ex. B2         Postal acknowledgements

Ex. B3         Original letter no objection letter for the complainant addressed to the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai.

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT
Copy to :-

1) Sri V. Dharma Kumar, Advocate.

2) Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate.

 

         1) Copy was made ready on     :

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :

 
B.V.P.                                               - - -




......................B. Durga Kumari
......................Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao
......................Sri.S.A.Khader Basha