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
Tuesday the 18th day of May, 2004
C.D.No.128/2003
S.V. Thirupathamma,
W/o. S.T.Rangaiah,
R/o. Done,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by her
Counsel Sri M.L.Sreenivasa Reddy
-Vs-
United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Rep by its Divisional Manager,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Syed Shafaqath Hussain
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This Consumer Dispute of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986,seeking a direction On the opposite party to pay RS.1, 91, 450/- with 12% P.A, cost of lorry damage, and any such other reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the exigencies of the case.
- The brief facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No AP 21 T 3317 and the same was insured with opposite party under policy bearing No. 051102/31/21/36557/2000. On 20.4.2000 the said lorry met with accident at 3 A.M within the jurisdiction of Veldanda Police Station in Mahaboob Nagar District, and the vehicle was badly damaged, it was surveyed by a Surveyor later the said vehicle was kept for repair in the workshop of S. Ismail of Nandyal, all shops including the workshop of the said Ismail were completely submerged in the floods and the complainant’s lorry was also submerged completely in the floods and the vehicle was damages beyond repairs and some parts were missed. Thereafter the complainant through her letter dt 24.8.2000 informed the opposite party by post under certificate of posting and also on phone about the floods and missed parts of the said vehicle. Additional Divisional manager Sri Subramaniyam and surveyor Sri Kameswar Rao inspected the said vehicle and assured compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle. The loss was estimated to RS.1,91,450/-, bills and claim forms wee submitted for the same. But to the dismay of the complainant the opposite party sent a discharge voucher dt 27.6.2001 along with a letter stating the claim was settled for RS.40,000/- only without giving any valid reason. Thereafter the complainant sent a letter dt 28.6.2001 refusing the settled amount and with a request to reconsider her claim as per the bills and estimation submitted by the complainant, but till now neither reply was given amount was paid. So the complainant on 8.10.2001 issued a legal notice demanding for settlement of her claim correctly, but the opposite party gave a replied notice d 5.11.2001 denying the averments of the legal notice. The opposite party in not setting the claim as per the damage caused to the vehicle amounting to deficiency of service.
3. In substantiation of her case the complainant relies on the following documents record Viz (1) letter dt 24.8.2000 addressed by complainant to the opposite party under certificate of posting (2) acknowledgement of certificate of posting dt 24.8.2000 (3) letter dt 27.6.2001 addressed by the opposite party to the complainant (4) letter dt 28.6.2001 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party (5) office copy of legal notice dt 8.10.2001 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party and (6) reply notice dt 5.11.2001 sent by opposite part’y counsel to the complainant’s counsel, besides to his sworn affidavit and a third party affidavit and suitably replied to the interrogatories filed by the opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum of this case the opposite party got its appearance through its standing counsel and filed its written version (objection statement) denying the complaint averments made in the complaint besides questioning its maintainability. It admits that the complainant insured his lorry bearing No. AP 217 3317 with the opposite party and the policy was in force at the relevant time of the accident, and the said vehicle was badly damage in the said accident but denies the said vehicle was once again damage in floods in the workshop of Ismail of Nandyal as it was completed submerged and some parts are missing, it also denies inspection to the said vehicle by Sri Subramaniyam, Assistant Divisional Manager along with Sri Kameswar Rao surveyor and further denies not information relating to the damage of the vehicle in floods was received by the opposite party.
5. In further submits that on intimation of accident the opposite appointed Sri B.R.K.Reddy independent surveyor to conduct spot survey. Thereafter complainant submitted his estimation, again the opposite party deputed Sri J.S.V.Kameswar Rao to assess the loss at the workshop of Sri S. Ismal and he assessed the loss to RS.44,000/-. Finally after completion of repair to the said vehicle, the opposite party appointed Mr P.Narandra kishore independent surveyor to re inspect the vehicle along with salvage and filed his report. Basing on the above surveyor’s reports the opposite party assessed and settled the loss for RS.40,000/- only which was not accepted by the complainant .
6. It further says that the opposite party came to know for the first time that the vehicle was once again damaged in floods only from the legal notice of the complainant. The alleged intimation was given by the complainant on 24.8.2000 under certificate of posting was not received by the opposite party and the documents filed by the complainant are fabricated for the purpose of the case, as earlier no such information was given to the opposite party about the floods damage to the said vehicle. In the absence of any damage about the loss sustained in the floods and not providing opportunity to the opposite party to inspect the said vehicle and to assess the loss, the claim of the complainant is not sustainable in Law and the claim settled by opposite party is in accordance with Law & terms and conditions of the policy and the opposite party is ready to pay said amount and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of its case the opposite party relied on the following documents record Viz (1) private and confidential motor (spot) survey report dt 28.4.2000 of B.P.K.Reddy along with photos (2) Private and confidential Motor Survey Report (Final) dt 4.11.2000 of J.S.V.Kameswar Rao along with photos and (3) Post Report inspection report dt 11.12.2000 of Narendra Kishore along with photos and they are marked as Ex B.1 to B.3 for their appreciation in this case, besides to his sworn affidavit in re-iteration of his written version as evidence.
8. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service of the opposite party and his entitleness for the reliefs sought:-
9. The facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 3317 and the same was insured with opposite party under policy bearing No. 051102/31/021/16/36557/2000 and the policy was in force at the time of the accident.
10. The only dispute is regarding the settlement of claim of the complainant. The Ex A.1 is the letter dt 24.8.2000 of the complainant to the opposite party referring to the complainants lorry submerged in flood water which was left in Ismail workshop at Nandyal for repairs, which met with accident on 23.4.2000. It further says the detached engine parts are not traced which are left for repair and also takes a mention that telephone information was given to opposite party. The above letter under Ex A.1 was sent to opposite party under certificate of posting, in Ex A.2, in view of Ex A.2 it is presumed that the said letter has reached opposite party. But as against to it the written version of opposite party in its averments alleges that the said Ex A.1 has not been received by the opposite party and there is no other intimation by the complainant as to the submerge of his lorry in flood water in Ismail workshop at Nandyal. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the opposite party and as in the Ex A.1 the complainant stated that his lorry was submerged in flood water, in view of Ex A.2 it is clear that the complainant has given intimation to the opposite party vide Ex A.1 sent under certificate of presumed to the opposite party, sending a letter under certificate of posting is assumed that the said letter has been received by the opposite party. Subsequent to the sending of the Ex A.1 the said statement of the opposite party on this aspects not only remains highly inconsistence, but also there by un trust worthy and as causing of any bonafides of the opposite party in that regard. Therefore what follows is that the said Ex.A.1 was received by the opposite party and no action was taken by the opposite party to inspect the said lorry and to estimate damages caused to the lorry in floods and hence there appears every bonafides of the complainant in his hesitation on the said grievance and the deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party in that regard.
11. The Ex A.3 is letter dt 27.6.2001 addressed by the opposite party to the complainant, informing the complainant that her claim has been settled to RS.40, 000/- only and a discharge voucher is enclosed for RS.40,000/- only, to return the same duly signed on RS.1 Revenue Stamp. The said exhibit doesn’t takes a mention as how the opposite party reached to the figure of RS.40, 000/-, hence the complainant rejected the said amount. From the facts born in the above exhibit it is clear that the opposite party reduced the claim of the complainant without showing any proper valid reasons, which itself is deficiency of service of the opposite party.
- The Ex A.4 is the letter dt 28.6.2001 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party in reply to Ex A.3, it says the settling her claim to RS.40, 000/- is not acceptable, as she had to spend more than 1.5 lacks for getting the said insured lorry repaired. It further says that as intimation was given to the opposite party regarding the damage due to floods to the said lorry, the opposite party neither inspected nor conducted survey to the said lorry, lastly it requests the opposite party to reconsider her claim and inform within seven days. There was no response to the said letter of the complainant. The complainant being vexed issued legal notice dt 8.10.2001 addressed to the opposite party vide Ex A.5, the same grievances such as the lorry of the complainant met with accident and was kept for repairs in workshop of Ismail of Nandyal and the said lorry was submerged completely in the floods. On intimation Divisional Manager Subramaniyam along with surveyor Sri Kameswar Rao inspected and assured to compensate the damages caused in floods. The loss was estimated to RS.1, 91, 450/- and all necessary bills are submitted to the opposite party but instead of paying the said amount the opposite party reduced the claim to RS.40, 000/- only without giving any proper valid reasons for the same and there by the complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party claiming the amount of RS.1, 91, 450/- within one week. The Ex A.6 is the reply of opposite party denying all the material averments of Ex A.5 notice of the complainant as false and alleging the settlement amount of RS.40, 000/- by it, is as per law and terms and conditions of the policy. It denies of any inspection by Assistant Divisional Manager and surveyor and requests to receive the said amount of RS.40,000/- settled by the opposite party discharging voucher duly signed.
13. Further from the contents of Ex A.1, letter dt 24.8.2000, where in the complainant intimated the opposite party that the said insured lorry was completely submerged in flood and same parts are not traced, in view of Ex A.2, it is presumed that the said letter has been received by the opposite party and the opposite party taking lame excuses that it has not received the said letter. All the above material indicates in the uni-tone that the opposite party having received the Ex A.1 did not bother to inspect the said insured lorry and to assess the damages allegedly caused in floods, which is supported, by a third party sworn affidavit of Ismail in whose workshop the complainant’s lorry was kept for repairs. He further says that the complainant’s vehicle was kept in his garage for repair and on 23.8.2000, due to floods the said vehicle was completely submerged. On the other hand the opposite party settled the claim to a meager amount of RS.40, 000/-. Hence there appears every deficiency of service from the opposite party side towards the complainant.
- The opposite party except alleging the non receiving of Ex A.1 and filling Ex B.1 to B.3 surveyor reports did not substantiate their bonafides and malafides of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting corroborative material.
- Hence in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service of the opposite party in not responding to Ex A.1 and in not bothering to conduct inspection and to assess damages caused in floods, and instead settling the claim to the meager amount of RS.40, 000/- without proper valid reasons there by makes out deficiency of service of the opposite party to the complainant in that regard.
- The complainant is certainly remaining entitled and to get the amount which he spent in getting his lorry repaired which was damaged, and also for compensation for suffering and mental agony he faced at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of the opposite party to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to pay the same.
17. Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of RS.1, 91, 450/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization, along with RS. 5,000/- towards compensation for damage and mental agony suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of opposite party and RS.5, 000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open Court this the 18th day of May, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
