This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri J.Sharath Reddy, Advocate for complainant, Sri G.Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 &2, Sri Harender Reddy, Advocate for opposite party no.3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Ashok Ley Land bus bearing No.AP 20 X 9574, and it was insured with the opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 by paying Rs.45,805/- towards premium amount for the risk of third party as well as own damages under policy bearing No. 411300/31/2008/11605, which is valid from 26-03-2008 to 25-03-2009. Unfortunately, on 17-06-2008, the vehicle met with an accident near N.T.R. statue at Khammam, immediately, it was informed to the opposite parties and shifted the vehicle to the workshop for repairs. The mechanic estimated the damages at Rs.1,00,000/- and issued estimation bill to that effect, after receipt of said information, the opposite parties deputed a surveyor for estimation of damages. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and submitted the report by assessing the damages. The complainant further submitted that after submission of survey report, the complainant sent the claim form along with required documents and waited for more than one year for sanction of damages as per estimation bill but there is no response from the opposite parties in spite of repeated approaches, due to which, the complainant barrowed the amounts with higher interest to avoid further damages to the damaged vehicle. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, issued legal notice dated 05-10-2009, to the opposite party no.1. In response to the legal notice, the opposite party no.1 gave a reply by denying the contents of the legal notice. Then the complainant had given a copy of legal notice to the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 also given a reply by denying its liability and stated that the opposite party no.1 & 2 are only liable to pay the damages and directed the complainant to proceed against them and as such the complainant constrained to file the complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest @24% p.a. towards damages, claimed as per estimation bill and to award Rs.25,000/- together with interest @24% p.a. towards compensation and costs of Rs.1000/-.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A4..
Ex.A1:- Photocopy of policy dt. 29-03-2008.
Ex.A2:- Legal notice, dt.5-10-2009 along with Postal receipt & acknowledgment.
Ex.A3:- Reply notice dt.08-10-2009 issued by opposite party no.1.
Ex.A4:- Reply notice dt.07-10-2009, issued by opposite party no.3.
Along with the above documents, the complainant also filed photocopy of claim form.
3. On being noticed, the opposite parties no.1 &2 appeared through their counsel and filed counter by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint. On behalf of opposite party No.3, the counsel for opposite party no.3 appeared, did not to choose to file its counter.
4. In the counter, the opposite parties no. 1 &2, admitted the issuance of the policy bearing No.411300/31/2008/11605 and denied the other averments and also submitted that they did not appoint any surveyor as there is no intimation regarding the accident within reasonable time. Therefore they cannot entertain the claim of the complainant. Further averred that there is a gap of more than one year 2 months for giving information regarding the accident i.e. the accident took place on 17-06-2008, the issuance of legal notice is on 30-09-2009 and as such the claim of the complainant is a fake one. As per specific clause in the policy, instructing the insured to intimate the accident to the insurance company by oral or in written but the complainant failed to do so and never approached the opposite parties no.1 & 2 and as such due to non-explanation of inordinate delay in intimation, the opposite parties no. 1 &2 are not liable to pay the insurance amount. Further mentioned that the complainant failed to mention the name of the workshop, where the vehicle has been repaired and did not furnish the bills regarding the amounts spent for repairs and name of the final surveyor, even though the complainant failed to furnish the said details even after raising the above objections through reply notice, dated.08-10-2009. The opposite parties no.1 & 2 further submitted that in collusion with the opposite party no.3, the present complaint was filed to get wrongful gain and as such the complaint is not maintainable and the opposite parties no.1 &2 are not liable to pay the insurance amount as there is no deficiency on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of their averments, the opposite parties no.1 & 2, filed written arguments.
6. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief
as prayed for?
Point:-
As seen from the above averments, it is clear that the complainant is the owner of Ashok Ley Land Bus bearing no. AP 20 X 9574 and obtained the insurance policy from the opposite parties no.1 &2 through opposite party no.3, by paying the premium amount of Rs.45,805/-, covering the risk of third party as well as own damages vide policy bearing No. 411300/31/2008/11605, which is valid from 26-03-2008 to 25-03-2009. On 17-08-2008, the vehicle met with an accident, immediately the accident was informed and shifted the damaged vehicle to the workshop. On being received the information regarding the accident, the opposite party deputed a surveyor and assessed the damages for Rs.1,00,000/- and submitted the survey report to the opposite parties, then the complainant claimed the opposite parties along with the necessary documents including estimation bill for Rs.1,00,000/- and also alleged that there is no response from the opposite parties even in spite of receiving the claim form and legal notice dt.05-10-2009 and as such approached the Forum on his grievance. Upon perusing the documents and the contents of the complaint, we came to a conclusion, nothing could be elicited from the entire record and the complainant had failed to follow the proper steps in claiming the damages/insured amount as per policy and also observed that, in support of his averments nothing could be placed before us for proper consideration except filing of photocopy of policy copy, legal and reply notices and photocopy of claim form, having no proof with regard to whether it was reached to the opposite parties or not and also failed to file any sufficient proof regarding the deficiency of services on the part of opposite parties except issuance of legal notice. Moreover, he could not placed estimation bill and copy of survey report and also failed to give the particulars of the workshop, where the damaged vehicle got repaired and as such in the absence of any material proof regarding the deficiency of service we could not fasten any liability on the part of opposite parties basing on mere allegations and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.
7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 25th day of February, 2013.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties:
-None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:-
Ex.A1:- Photocopy of policy dt. 29-03-2008.
Ex.A2:- Legal notice, dt.5-10-2009 along with Postal receipt & acknowledgment.
Ex.A3:- Reply notice dt.08-10-2009 issued by opposite party no.1.
Ex.A4:- Reply notice dt.07-10-2009, issued by opposite party no.3
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- Nil -
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam.
