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
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 12th day of September,2005
CD No. 111/2005
G. Thimma Reddy,
K.S.Parvathappa and Co.,
Mugathi (V),
Nandavaram (M).
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Regional Office,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
Regional Office, Greenlanda Road,
Begumpet, Hyderabad.
2. The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 1. The Regional Office,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
Regional Office, Greenlanda Road,
Begumpet, Hyderabad.
3. The Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd,
Branch Office, M.M.Road,
Adoni. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 5.9.2005 for arguments and upon the complainant and his counsel Sri D. Mallikarjuna, Advocate, called absent no representation, Sri D.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 and 3 set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of CP Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.96,740/- with 24% interest per annum, damages and costs of the complainant in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is running a firm in the name and style of M/s K.S.Parvathappa and Company, at Mugathi (V), Kurnool Dist, he has taken a Marine Cargo policy bearing No. 216/2002 dt 30.3.2002 by paying Rs.10,501/- for transporting Oil in a tanker with opposite party No.3. The complainant lost an Oil tanker and a complaint was registered by Nandavarm, Police Station, under Crime No. 51/2002, subsequently, the police recovered Oil tanker at Kakinada and a charge sheet was field before the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Yemmiganur in CC No. 419/2002 against the driver and the owner of the tanker. The complainant is entitled to claim for the loss of oil and incidental expenditure for the purpose of transporting oil, Bank guarantee for interim custody of oil, cost of drums surrendered to the Court etc. The opposite party paid only assessed loss of oil but did not pay incidental charges, thereafter the complainant addressed a letter dt 17.3.2005 to opposite party No.1,2 and 3, claiming Rs.96,740/- towards incidental charges. The opposite party No.2 replied vide letter dt 21.3.2005 stating that the incidental charges are out of claim purview and rejected the claim amount of Rs.96,740/-. The said attitude of opposite parties in rejecting the claim of the complainant is amounting to deficiency of service by the opposite parties to the complainant.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents Viz (1) Marine Cargo policy bearing No. 215/2002 (2) letter dt 17.3.2005 of complainant to opposite party No.2 and (3) Rejection letter dt 21.3.2005 of opposite party No.2 to complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1 to 3 remained exparte through out the case proceedings and were made exparte and opposite party No.2 appeared before this Forum and contested the case by filing written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No.2 denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts, but admits the complainant has taken a Marine Cargo policy bearing No. 215/2002 dt 30.3.2002 for transporting Oil in tankers. The Marine policy issued to the complainant is of CIF, which means the coverage is for consignment price of goods lost, Insurance premium and Freight charges and not entitled for Incidental Expenditures for purpose of Transport of Oil, Bank Guarantees for Interim Custody of Oil and cost of drums surrendered to the Court. The claim of the complainant is settled as per the policy issued to the complainant and paid to the complainant based on the surveyor’s assessment and the complainant accepted the payment in full and final settlement and submitted Subrogation letter to the opposite parties. The complainant through his letter dt 17.3.2005 addressed to opposite party No.2 requested for payment of incidental expenditure of Rs.96,740/- under the said policy, as the complainant is not entitled to the said amount and as the said claim amount is not within the purview of the policy, addressed a letter to complainant dt 21.3.2005 informing the same. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite party No.2 in support of its case relied on the following documents Viz (1) subrogation form dated 4.7.2002 of the complainant in respect of policy No. 2002/216/30.3.2002, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its written version averments as defence and the above document is marked as Ex B.1 for its appreciation in this case.
7. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
8. It is the case of the complainant that he has taken a Marine Open policy bearing No. 216/2002 from opposite parties for transporting Oil in Tankers. The complainant lost one Oil tanker and subsequently the police recovered the said tanker and Oil was lost from the said Tanker. On the claim preferred by the complainant for the loss of Oil the opposite parties settled the claim as assessed by the surveyor and paid the amount to the complainant and the complainant also submitted a subrogation form to the opposite parties vide Ex B.1,dated 4.7.2002. The Ex B.1 is issued by the complainant, it says the receipt of Rs. 2,36,308/- in full and final settlement of the claim in respect of loss of Oil on 15.6.2002 under policy No. 2002/216/30.3.2002. The opposite parties counsel strongly argued that when once the complainant accepted the claim amount in full and final settlement and cannot now claim for incidental expenses, as the incidental expenses are not within the purview of the claim the complainant is not entitled to the same. But as against to it, the complainant in his complaint averments alleges that he is entitled to incidental expenditure, but did not place any cogent material in support of said allegations for his entitleness and there is no relevant stipulation in the said policy that the policy holder is entitle to incidental charges also, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim incidental expenditures from the opposite parties. In the absence any such cogent substance in support of said allegations of the complainant on this aspect not only remains highly in consistency but also there by untrust worthy and as consisting of any bonafidies of complainant in that regard. Therefore, what follows is that there is no material placed on record by the complainant for claiming incidental expenditure and there appears every bonafidies of opposite parties in their hesitation that the claim of the complainant for incidental expenditure is beyond the purview of the claim, therefore there is no deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties in rejecting the claim for incidental expenditure, which the complainant is not entitled for.
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictation to the Stenographer, Typed to dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 12th day of September, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Marine Cargo policy bearing No. 215/2001.
Ex A.2 Letter dated 17.3.2005 of complainant to opposite party No.2
Ex A.3 Rejection letter dt 21.3.2005 of opposite party No.2 to complainant.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties.
Ex B.1 Subrogation Form dated 4.7.2002 of the complainant in respect of policy No. 2002/216/30.3.2002.
PRESIDEN
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
Sri D. Mallikarjuna, Advocate, Kurnool the complainant.
2. Sri D.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool the opposite party No.2
3. The Regional Office, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Regional Office,
Greenlanda Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
4. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd, Branch Office,
M.M.Road, Adoni.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
