Date of Filing:  10-11-2017

                                                        Date of Order:   29-11-2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

   HON’BLE  Sri  P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Sri  K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,  MEMBER

HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM., MEMBER

Wednesday, the 29^th day of November, 2019

C.C.No.479 /2017

Between

Mr.Narahari  Prabhakar Reddy,

S/o. Adi Reddy, R/o. Katnapally Village,

Sultanabad, Karimnagar District

Presently residing at  H.No.2-4-721/2,

Ramnnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal city & District.

The address for serving of notices and summons  etc., on the complaint is that of his counsel:

Sri P.  Pradeep, G M, Hyderabad                            …Complainant                                                                       

And

The Universal  Sampo General Insurance  Co.,  Ltd.,

Rep.by  its Manager,  Zonal Office Unit No.301

Vasudeva  Plaza, H.No.8-3-977/4, Third Floor,

Opp:  Srinagar Colony recreation Club,

Srinagar Colony,  Hyderabad.                                   ….Opposite Party

Counsel for the complainant                   : Mr. P.Pradeep

Counsel for the opposite Party       :  Mr.K.Madhusudhan Reddy.

O R D E R

(By Sri K.Ram Mohan , B.Sc., M.A., LL.B., Member on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint has  been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging that     repudiation of the claim, submitted  by the complainant , by the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service .  Thereby seeking  a direction  by this Hon’ble Forum to the opposite parties to pay Rs.6,00,537/- towards repair charges  to the damaged  insured vehicle together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing  of this complaint till realization, Rs.1,00,000/- towards operating charges.  Hence the complaint.

2.    The complaint averments in brief are that :

                  That Mr. Narahari  Prabhakar Reddy, being  owner of the Figo    Ford     car bearing No. A P  15AX 2979,  having obtained insurance policy bearing No. 2311/56063393/000 with a validity from 5.4.2016 to 4.4.2017 from the opposite party,  allowed the same to his  friends  to take insured  vehicle  for attending their personal work at Kuravi village, who took  the insured vehicle from him on 4.2.2017;  and after completion of their work at Kuravi, while returning  and  when reached at Momnur  Fort,   one offending  vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 05TX 319,   being drive by is driver in rash and negligent  manner   with high  speed ,  dashed the insured vehicle casing extensive damages to the insured vehicle and suffered injuries to its inmates.  The said insured vehicle was alleged to be driven by one Mr.Somisertty Srinivas holding valid license  at the time of occurrence  of accident.

3. The version of the opposite party is that

                On intimation about the occurrence of accident causing  damages to the insured vehicle and injuries  to its inmates,    by the complainant vide letter dated 7.4.2017 which  did not speak about the driver who drove the vehicle, whether  Somesetty  Srinivas  or some other person is the material facts  at time of the accident,  the opposite party appointed  IRDA license  surveyor  who conducted investigation, submitted report and advised opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,15,138.72ps. to the complainant for repairing  the damaged insured vehicle towards settlement of claim, and accordingly the opposite party is said to have paid the said amount to the complainant through NEFT.  The opposite party contended that the estimation made by the Saboo Auto zone  is on higher side.  The  opposite party further stated that the complainant has himself stated about the driver that the Sri Somesetty Srinivas  was driving the insured vehicle at the time of  accident  During the investigation  done by the appointed surveyor  opposite party came to know that one Mr.Bade Babu Rao was driving  the said insured vehicle   at the time of  the accident.   Sri Somesetty Srinivas  was not holding valid driving license whereas the said Babu Rao was holding valid driving license at the time of accident.  Keeping this point in view the opposite party prayed  for dismissal of the complainant.

          In the enquiry  the complainant filed documents  and got  them marked as exhibits as A1 to A14.  Whereas  the opposite party has  not filed  any documents.  As such nothing has been marked as exhibits on his part.

          Now points for consideration :        

1. Whether  the complainant  could make out a case of deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite party and  thereby entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
2. To what relief?

Point No.1:    Admitted facts are that :

                   Ownership of insured vehicle, purchase of the policy from the opposite party occurrence of accident, lodging  a complaint, issuance of FIR,  by the police station Momnur.  The opposite party merely stated that payment of 1,15,138.72ps. has been paid  to the complainant through  NEFT as per the advise of IRDA license surveyor.  The opposite party  failed to furnish complete account details to which it transferred the said amount.  Presently the complainant did not say anything about payment of said amount through NEFT in the legal notice  got issued by him to the opposite party.  The photographs ( Exhibit A4 ), support the contention of the opposite party that Bada Baburao was driving the insured vehicle  at the material time of the accident.,  as such,  received severe injuries in the accident.  If  the averment of the  complainant  is true that Sri Somesetty Srinivas was driving the vehicle  why did he not receive any injury. Had Sri Somesetty Srinivas  driven  the insured vehicle at the time of accident he would have received injuries but he did not receive any injury  rather he arranged  treatment  to the injured  by participating actively.  Because the Bada Baburao was said to have no  valid license  and the Sri Somesetty Srinivas was  having valid license  the complainant appears to have cleverly  stated that the Sri Somesetty Srinivas was driving the vehicle at the time of  accident.  The action of the complainant  amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the  policy.  As such he is not entitled to any claim as made in the complaint.  Hence point No.1 is answered against the complainant  and in favour of the opposite party.

In view  of the discussions held  in  point No.1 the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

                     Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced  by us on this the  29^th  day of November , 2019

MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                      WITNESS EXAMINED

                                         nIL

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1-   Copy of Legal notice dt.31.7.2017

Ex.A2-    Postal acknowledgement cards

Ex.A3 –  Postal receipts

Ex.A4 –  Original photos of  damaged car

Ex.A5 – Copy of F I R  along with complaint  dt.5.2.2017

Ex.A6  - Copy of letter dt. 7.4.2017

Ex.A7 – Copy of certificate  of Registration of damaged car

Ex.A8 – Copy of Insurance Policy dt. 5-4-2016

Ex,.A9 -  Copy of Aadhar card

Ex.A10 -  Copy of Pan card

Ex.A11 – Copy of repudiation letter issued by  opposite party dt.18.7.2017

Ex.A12 – Motor  Insurance claim form

Ex.A 13 – Estimation details of damaged car

Ex.A14 – Copy of driving license of driver of car dt. 14.10.2008

Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party

                 -Nil

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                  PRESIDENT