Date of filing      : 29-04-2014

Date of Disposal : 13-03-2015  

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

Friday, this the 13th day of MARCH, 2015.

          PRESENT:  Sri P.V.Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                                      Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, Member

                      C.C.No.27/2014

Araveti Chandrasekhara Gupta,

S/o.Venkata Subbarayudu, Hindu,

Aged about 52 years,

Advocate by profession,

Resident of H.No.3/31,

SSK Complex,

Thadikala Bazar Centre, Stonehouspet,

Nellore – 524002.                                                                     …  Complainant

                      Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its branch manager,

Flat No.65, Opp Current office,

SBI Colony,

A.K.Nagar post,

Nellore 524 004.                                                                     … Opposite party

This matter coming on 27-02-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Chandrasekhar Gupta, Advocate for the complainant and                                  Sri N.Kodandaramireddy, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI P.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

1.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

           The complainant insured his vehicle, AP 26 AF 5172, with the opposite party for the period from 31-7-2012 to 30-07-2013.  The complainant went to the Kanyaka Parameswary temple on 11-02-2013.  He parked his vehicle in his house.  The vehicle was burnt in early hours of 12-02-2013 due to electrical short circuit.   The complainant informed the same to the police and the opposite party. The surveyor of the opposite party visited the premises and inspected the burnt vehicle.  The complainant submitted the claim with all the documents to the opposite party.  But, it was not settled by the opposite party.  The opposite party committed a deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint for recovery of the sum assured with interest, damages and costs.

2.   The brief averments of the counter of the opposite party are as follows:

      The complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations made in the complaint are not correct.  The complainant insured his vehicle with the opposite party.  The cause of the accident was not tallied with the electrical short circuit.  The vehicle was not burnt, as alleged.  There is no deficiency of service.  This Forum has no jurisdiction.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

3. Now the point for consideration is “whether the opposite party is committed a deficiency of service in rejecting the claim”?

4. The complainant and the divisional manager of the opposite party filed their affidavits as PW1 and RW1, respectively.  Exs.A1 to A8 were marked, on behalf of the complainant.  Exs.B1 to B4 were marked, on behalf of the opposite party.

5.  POINT:   The claim is with regard to the loss of the motor vehicle in a fire accident.  The ownership of the vehicle by the complainant and its insurance coverage by the opposite party were admitted.  The opposite party rejected the claim on the ground that “the actual cause of fire causing loss, which damage to the vehicle was not established in the documents submitted” (Ex.A8)).  The complainant lodged a police complaint with the police, soon after, the accident.  Ex.A4 is the certificate of the police to the effect that the vehicle was lost in a fire accident.  It was further opined that the loss might have happened due to electric short circuit in the above bike.    The certificate of the station fire officer was to the effect that the motor bike was damaged in a fire accident(Ex.A5).  The insured declared the value of the motor vehicle, as Rs.25,000/- in the insurance policy, marked Ex.A1.

6.  The complainant contended that in the documents filed by him, the cause of the fire accident was also mentioned clearly.  The complainant stated that the cause was due to electrical short circuit in the vehicle.  The same was corroborated in the certificate issued by the police, under Ex.A4.  The loss of the vehicle due to the above type of the accident is covered by the insurance policy.  The opposite party appointed a surveyor to examine the spot, after the accident.  The report of the surveyor is marked Ex.B4. In the surveyor’s report, it is clearly mentioned that the cause said by

the insured is corroborated with the nature of the loss.  As such, the opposite party has no material to reject the claim of the complainant. The claim was rejected on flimsy grounds.  The reason mentioned by the opposite party is unjustifiable and untenable.  The same is not also legal.  The opposite party ought to have banked on the report of the surveyor and allowed the claim.  The loss occasioned to the complainant was more than the declared value of the vehicle in Ex.A1.  The complainant is claiming the above amount only from the opposite party.  Since the rejection of the claim was untenable, it must be held that the opposite party committed a deficiency of service in doing so.  Since there is a deficiency of service, the complaint is maintainable in this Forum.  The complainant is entitled to the sum assured with interest @9% and costs of Rs.4,000/-.  The untenable rejection of the claim might have caused mental agony to the complainant.  As such, the complainant is found entitled to damages of Rs.15,000/-.  The point is held accordingly. 

7.       In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with interest @9%(nine) from the date of the complaint i.e., 29-04-2014 till realization along with costs of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) and compensation of Rs.15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only)

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 13th day of, MARCH,2015.    

               Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:                    

                                                                          Id/-

                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copies to:

1) Sri A.Chandra Sekhar Gupta,

    Advocate,

    D.No.3/31, SSK Complex,

    Stonehousepet,

    Thadikalabazaar Centre,

    SPSR Nellore – 524002.

2) Sri N.Kodandarami Reddy,

    Advocate,

    Nellore-3.