Andhra Pradesh

Kurnool

CC/18/2007

Y. Subba Reddy,S/o. Y. Akki Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.Zubair

20 Jul 2007

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

and

Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Friday the 20^th  day of July, 2007

C.C. No.18/2007

 

Y. Subba Reddy, S/o. Y. Akki Reddy,

Venkata Ramana Colony, Road No.8, Kurnool.                                                                      

 

…   COMPLAINANT                  

 

Verses

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager,

H.D.C.T. Complex, Kurnool.

                                                                       … OPPOSITE PARTY

 

        This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of                                Sri .S.  Zubair, Advocate, kurnool for complainant, Sri. P. Ramanganeyulu, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party and after persuing the material papers on record,  the Forum made the following:-

 

ORDER

 (As per Smt. C. Preethi,  Member)

 

 

 

1. This consumer complainant is filed Under Section 12 of  C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs.3,18,768/- with 18% interest per annum, Rs.50,000/- towards damages, costs of the complaint and any other relief  or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 21W 2623, which is covered Under the policy bearing No. 611500 /31/05445 issued by opposite party and the said lorry met with accident on 13.3.2005 and sustained major damages.  The opposite parties surveyor assessed the loss to Rs.7,69,268/-.  But in the month of January ,2006 the opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.4,48,500/- and the complainant received the said cheque with protest . Inspite of repeated demands the opposite party did not pay the balance amount, hence got  issued legal notice dated 30/8/06 to which there was no  reply from opposite parties .  Therefore, the complainant resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) office copy of legal notice dated 30.8.2006 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above document is marked as Ex A1 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party and replied to the interrogatories of opposite party.

.

1. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
2. The written version opposite party admits the complainants vehicle bearing No. AP 21 W 2623 insured with it from 9.01.2005 to 8.01.2006 for declared value of Rs.10,00,000/- As per R.C the complainant’s vehicle, the said  vehicle is permitted to carry 3 persons in the cabin and its gross vehicle weight is only 25,000 kgs. and  unladen weight is 8,155 kgs.  So the goods carrying capacity is only 16,845 kgs.  The complainant violated two policy terms          (1) the said vehicle carried 4 persons in the cabin and (2) carried 155 Kgs. of excess load. As the complainant intentionally violated policy terms and conditions he is not at all entitled to any claim.  The independent surveyor appointed by opposite party assessed the loss to Rs.7,67,268, as the assessment exceeded 75% of insured value of Rs.10,00,000/- the wreck value in the market to be around Rs.3,75,000/- and suggested to settle the claim for Rs.6,23,500/- On 14.9.2005 the complainant came forward for  compromise  and accepted the settlement of claim to Rs.4,67,250/-.  There after the opposite party after discussion with the complainant settled the claim to Rs.4,48,500/- in full and final settlement  and a cheque dated 31/1/2006 was issued to the complainant and the complainant accepted the same without raising any objection and surprisingly got issued legal  notice dated 30.8.2006  demand    for payment of Rs.3,20,768/-. The complainant settled the claim as   full and final settlement and he is not  entitled to any amount and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-.
3. In support of  their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) office copy of policy bearing No.611500/31/04/05445 and its terms and conditions (2) Insurance Survey Report of V.V. Reddy dated  3.5.2005 (3) office copy of way bill dated 11.3.2005 (4) letter dated 14.9.2005 of complainant addressed to opposite party (5) letter dated 13.12.2005 of complainant to opposite party (6) claim disbursement voucher dated 31.1.2006 (7) Xerox copy of guide lines dated 27.10.2003 as to settlement of claims on compromise basis, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his written version avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B 7 for its appreciation in this case.  The opposite party caused interrogatories and replied to the interrogatories of Complainant.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties?
5. It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 21 w 2623 and the said lorry was insured with opposite party vide Ex.B1 on the claim preferred by the complainant the opposite parties settled the claim on the basis of Ex.B7 (guidelines dated 27.10.2003) and paid the settled amount of Rs.4,48,500/-  to the complainant vide Ex B 6, claim disbursement  voucher dated 31.1.2006.  But the complainant in this case submits that the violation of policy terms and conditions is not a violation at all and hence he is entitled to amount assessed  by the surveyor  i.e. Rs.7,67,268/- vide Ex B2 .  But the opposite party submitted that the complainant vide Ex.B.4  letter dated 14.9.2005 agreed for settlement of claim at Rs.4,67,250/- on net of salvage basis and vide Ex B 5 letter dated 13.12.2005 of the complainant addressed to opposite party admitted as to the said vehicle carrying 4 persons against 3 persons permitted in the RC, in violation of policy terms and conditions.  Hence the complainant accepted to settle the claim to Rs.4,67,250/-
6. The complainant vide Ex B 4 dated 14.9.2005 agreed for settlement of claim to Rs.4,67,250/- but the opposite party settled the claim to Rs.4,48,500/- and paid the same vide Ex B6  to the complainant. There is nothing in the written version or in the sworn affidavit avernments of opposite party  for reducing the complainants agreed  settlement amount of Rs.4,67,250/- to Rs.4,48,500/-.  When the complainant agreed for settlement of his claim to Rs.4,67,250/- vide Ex B4 and the opposite party  vide Ex B.6 reduced the settlement amount to RS.4,48,500/- without giving any reason and paid the said amount to the complainant . Hence it is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in doing so.
7. To sum up, the complainant’s claim in this case is for Rs.3,18,768/- as opposite party paid Rs.4,48,500/- which is not the amount half of the assessed by the surveyor.  But the complainant vide Ex.B.4 agreed to settlement of his claim to Rs.4,67,250/- only. Therefore , he is entitled to that amount only.  As the opposite party vide Ex.B.6 paid on Rs.4,48,500/- to the complainant and  no reason is averred by  the opposite party for reducing the amount.  Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the difference amount to the complainant and the complainant is entitled only to the difference amount.  The opposite party by their deficiency of service caused mental agony to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the complaint.
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant Rs. 18,700/- i.e., the difference of amount between agreed by the Complainant and already paid by the Opposite Party, as the Complainant suffered mental agony at the deficient act of the Opposite Party an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation.  As the Complainant was driven to the Forum for redressal of the grievances the Opposite Party is to pay                   Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the case.  The Opposite Party is to comply the supra stated award within a month of receipt of this order.  In default the supra stated award amount is to be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant with an interest of 9% P.A. from the date of default till satisfactory realization of the award amount.

 

        Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us  in theOpen bench  on this the 20^th day of July, 2007.

 

 

     Sd/-                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :Nil                               For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1. Office Copy of legal notice, dated 30.8.2006,

            Along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.

 

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:

 

Ex.B1. Office Copy of policy No. 611500/31/04/05445 and

           Its terms and conditions. (No.in 3 papers)

Ex.B2. Insurance Survey Report of V.V.Reddy, dated 3.5.2005

           (No in 12 sheet) 

Ex.B3. Office copy of way bill , dated 11.3.2005.

Ex.B4. Letter, dated 14.9.2005 of complainant

            Addressed to opposite party.

Ex.B5.Letter dated 13.12.2005 of complainant to opposite party.

Ex.B6. Claim disbursement voucher dated 31.1.2006, settlement

           Intimation voucher. (No. in 3 papers)

Ex.B7. Xerox copy of revised guidelines, dated 27.10.2003 for

           Settlement of claim as compromise basis.                                                                          

 

 

 

 

             Sd/-                                                                    Sd/-

        MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

                                                              

 

Copy to:-

 

1. Sri.S. Zubair, Advocate,  Kurnool.

2. Sri.P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool.

 

Copy was made ready on:

Copy was dispatched on:

Copy was delivered to parties: