Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/54/2014

Medapati Lalitha Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co., - Opp.Party(s)

P. Surya Prabhavathi

27 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                                                               Date of filing:   24.11.2014

                                                                                                Date of Order: 27.06.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                         PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

                 Monday, the 27^th day of June, 2016

 

 

C.C.No.54 /2014

Between:-

 

Medapati Lalitha Kumari, W/o.Veerraghava Reddy,

Hindu, Stridhana and resident of Flat No.203,

Karthik Residency, Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry-533103.                         …        Complainant

 

                                    And

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its

Divisional Manager, Door No.6-10-3, Hotha Vari Street,

Innespeta, Rajahmundry-533101, E.G. District.                                          …        Opposite party

 

 

            This case coming on 21.06.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Smt. P. Surya Prabhavathi, Advocate for the complainant and Sri M. Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

O R D E R

[Per Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao, Member] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.8,11,380-84ps towards repair charges met by the complainant in getting the vehicle repaired and made fit for riding with interest at 24% p.a. from 24.04.2012 when the complainant paid the said amount to M/s. Coastal Automobiles (P) Ltd., Rajahmundry till date of realization and award costs of the complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant is that she is the absolute owner of the vehicle i.e. Tata Safari bearing registration No.AP5BQ8485 and she purchased the same on 19.8.2010 from Coastal Automobiles Pvt. Limited, Rajahmundry. On 14.8.2011, while the said vehicle getting down into the quarry owned by the complainant “Lasya Granites” at Rayudupakalu the way was might be due to rain and at that juncture the driver who drove the said vehicle slowly and cautiously controlling breaks, but unable to control the vehicle suspecting that the vehicle is ready to fall into the quarry immediately he jumped from out of the vehicle and the vehicle fell down into the quarry and completely damaged. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party and insurance period was 26.7.2011 to the midnight of 25.7.2012, by the date of accident, the policy is in force. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party. Even though the vehicle was not plying, the opposite party calling upon her to pay Rs.27,410/- towards premium. The complainant paid the said amount on 24.7.2012. Inspite of several requests made by the complainant, the opposite party deputed the accident team on 17.8.2011 to bring the damage vehicle to the workshop and the accident team brought the said vehicle on 17.8.2011. On 3.4.2012, the surveyor of the opposite party submitted the survey report recommended the claim amount of Rs.5,21,395/-. The complainant further submitted that she incurred Rs.8,11,380-84ps got the said vehicle repaired. The opposite party sent a letter dt.19.11.2012 which was received by the complainant on 24.11.2012 stating that the physical condition of the vehicle and corrosion appearing on the various spots of the vehicle does not corroborate the claim. Hence, the complaint.   

3.         The opposite party filed its written version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. This opposite party submits that the vehicle belonging to the complainant did not met with an accident on 14.8.2011. The opposite party submits that the complainant originally purchased the vehicle in the month of June, 2010. As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under, every vehicle plying on the roads must be insured compulsorily. The complainant obtained an insurance policy on the date of her purchase of the vehicle. Normally, insurance policies for motor vehicles are issued for one calendar year, commencing from the date of issue. Thereafter, the complainant did not renew the insurance policy. The opposite party submits that immediately on receipt of the claim intimation in the above case, it appointed a surveyor to conduct spot survey of the place of accident, including the vehicle. The said surveyor obtained the photographs of the place of accident. On careful perusal of the photographs obtained by the spot surveyor indicate rust on the insured vehicle, at the places where the vehicles is damaged/dented. On receipt of the sport survey report, the opposite party appointed another investigator by named K.V. Siva Krishna Murthy, to ascertain the cause of accident and the time of the accident. The opposite party also appointed A. Chandra Sekhar, insurance surveyor and loss assessor to conduct motor final survey. The investigator Mr. K.V. Siva Krishna Murthy visited the place where the vehicle is said to have met with an accident and also perused the photographs obtained by the sport surveyor. The surveyor and loss assessor and the investigator independently discharged their duties. Both the surveyor and loss assessor as well as the investigator caused enquiries with the insured, her representatives and also the police officials. It is stated by the insured that at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by K. Nageswara Rao. It is further stated by the complainant that when the said K. Nageswara Rao was driving the vehicle along with the quarry owned by the complainant, the driver lost control due to muddy terrain, the driver sensing that the vehicle would fall into a ditch, jumped from the vehicle and that the vehicle fell into the ditch, which is about 30 feet deep.  It is further stated by the complainant that the fact of the accident was reported to the police and that SHO, Rajanagaram PS imposed a fine of Rs.200.00 to the driver for rash and negligent driving. The investigator appointed by the opposite party has carefully considered the version given by the complainant regarding the manner of the accident. The investigator also visited Rajanagaram Police Station and caused enquiries. The investigation conducted revealed that the police did not visit the scene of offence, did not prepare rough sketch/scene observation report and did not examine any mediators. The police also did not make any entry in the general dairy maintained by the police stating regarding the accident. The investigation also revealed that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident long prior to 14.8.2011. The complainant intentionally planted the vehicle in the quarry ditch, in the land owned by her and created a case as if her vehicle met with an accident on 14.8.2011. On receipt of the reports of the investigator, the opposite party caused detailed enquiries in its office. On verification of its records, it is noticed that the complainant mischievously obtained an insurance policy from the opposite party insuring her vehicle from 26.7.2011 to 25.7.2012. The complainant by suppressing the facts that the vehicle already met with an accident played fraud and obtained the insurance policy. The opposite party also initiated a departmental enquiry in this regard and charge sheeted the employee who issued the insurance policy to the complainant. The opposite party submits that for the reasons best known to her, the complainant did not get the vehicle repaired within reasonable time. The complainant’s vehicle was repaired after a lapse of 12 months. As stated supra, a detailed examination of photographs obtained by the sport surveyor indicate rust at the places of damage/dent. This amply proves that the vehicle met with an accident long prior to 14.8.2011. The renewal notice received by the complainant to renew the policy of her vehicle from 25.7.2012 was also issued in a routine manner. Usually, for every policy expiring by a particular date, intimations are sent to the insured to renew the policies, within time. The intimation sent to the complainant was one such routine intimation. The complainant responded to such intimation and renewed the policy. As stated supra, the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident long prior to 14.8.2011. In fact, the complainant’s vehicle was left uninsured prior to 26.7.2011. The complainant’s vehicle in fact met with an accident prior to 26.7.2011. The complainant obtained the insurance policy on 26.7.2011, by playing fraud, mischief and misrepresentation. The opposite party submits that the complaint is barred by time. The complainant filed the complaint beyond the time stipulated in the contract. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A7 have been marked for the complainant. The proof affidavit filed by the opposite party and Exs.B1 to B5 have been marked for the opposite party. The complainant filed written arguments.

5.         Heard both sides.

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

 

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  On perusal of the entire record, it is observed that the complainant herein purchased one Tata Safari car at the rate of Rs.10,01,620/- on 19.8.2010 vide invoice No.186 from the Coastal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Rajahmundry through finance obtained to a tune of Rs.9,20,000/- to be payable on monthly installment basis at the rate of Rs.31,900/- payable from 2.8.2010 onwards from the Tata Motors Finance Limited vide Ex.A1. The complainant obtained insurance for the above said car under package policy vide No.151100 3111P000681725 for the vehicle bearing No.AP05 BQ 8485 which is in force from 26.7.2011 to 25.7.2012 and the Insured Declared Value of the said vehicle is Rs.8,50,000/- as per Ex.A2. The above said policy was also renewed for  a further IDV is Rs.8,00,000/- period from 25.7.2012 onwards as per Ex.A3. Ex.A4 contained the receipt dt.16.10.2011 for Rs.2,000/- towards lifting charges of Tata Safari car bearing No.AP05 BQ 8485 by Hitachi 330 machine issued by one M. Lalitha Kumar, who is the present complainant, towing charges receipt of Rs.2,500/- dt.16.10.2011 issued by one N. Suryanarayana Reddy and Co. and a letter issued by the Manager, Body Shop dt.15.10.2011 stating that they sent an accident team on 17.8.2011 at 11.30 PM and brought the accidental vehicle to the workshop. The complainant submitted a cash bill for Rs.8,11,380.84ps issued by the Coastal Automobiles Private Limited, Rajahmundry on 24.4.2012 for the repairs undergone to the above said disputed vehicle as per Ex.A5. Ex.A6 is the letter dt.16.7.2012 addressed to the complainant, furnishing the copy of survey report as per the complainant’s letter under R.T.I Act, 2005 along with final survey report dt.30.4.2012. In this final motor survey report under Ex.A6 dt.30.4.2012, the surveyor recommended claim amount of Rs.5,21,395/- subject to  policy conditions and terms and further noted that all the vehicle records in original are to the verified. However, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide Ex.A7 letter dt.19.11.2012 for the insured vehicle as the damages to the vehicle in the said accident as claimed by the complainant as the facts and circumstances of the said accident is not corroborating with any cogent evidence and the said accident as reported was caused prior to the date claimed by the complainant as per the physical condition of the vehicle.    

            On receipt of information, accident of the insured vehicle, the opposite party deputed the surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the sport survey and recorded the details of damages with photographs and filed his report dt.18.8.2011 vide Ex.B1. Ex.B3 is the investigation report dt.19.12.2011, in which the surveyor stated that several documents were not produced by the complainant. The opposite party further appointed an Investigator, who filed his investigation report dt.17.9.2012, in which it was stated that the earlier insurance policy was expired on 30.6.2011 and the current policy valid from 26.07.2011 and there is a gap of 25 days in between the earlier policy and the present policy. Further, though the driver of the vehicle during the time of accident stated that he reported the incident at Rajanagaram P.S. and their challaned him for rash and negligent driving. But, there is no general diary entry over the reported accident and no panchanama conducted though a loss was in lakhs and the police said there is no such record available in the police station and the surveyor also filed photocopies of the accident vehicle under Ex.B2 report. Ex.B4 is the letter dt.22.3.2013 to the opposite party by the insurance investigator that the invoice bill No.68 for Rs.52,800/- of Hyderabad is a fake one. Ex.B5 is the insurance policy for four wheeler package policy vide No.1511003110P000626384 for the period from 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2011 without any vehicle number recorded on the policy details.     

            It is observed from the record, as per Ex.A1 invoice No.186 of 19.8.2010 issued by the Coastal Automobile Private Limited, the disputed vehicle Tata Safari was purchased by the complainant through finance obtained from Tata Finance and the first installment of the said finance was paid on 2.8.2010 whereas the insurance policy issued by the opposite party vide No.1511003110P000626384 without any vehicle number was for the period from 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2011 under Ex.B5. Further, the insurance was renewed from 26.7.2011 to 25.7.2012 and there is a gap of 25 days in between earlier policy and this policy. Further, the previous policy number was mentioned as 562816 where as the number is 626384, which is not matched with the number given in the earlier policy. Further, the vehicle was came to existence from 19.8.2010 and the installment to the finance company was paid from 2.8.2010, where as the insurance policy was issued on 1.7.2010 prior to existence of the disputed vehicle and how it could be possible for the insurance company.

            We further observed that though the complainant alleged that the accident of the vehicle was informed to the police and the S.H.O., Rajanagaram P.S. imposed a fine of Rs.200/- to the driver one K. Nageswara Rao for rash and negligent driving, but the investigator of the opposite party insurance company found and revealed that the police did not visit the scene of offence, did not prepare rough sketch/scene observation report and did not examine any mediators. There is no F.I.R. or the police even did not make any entry in the general diary maintained by the police station regarding the accident. So, the complainant failed to fulfill the condition No.1 i.e. in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The police investigation is necessary in case of accidents or theft either for own damages or third party damages and a detailed report with regard to investigation is a must for settlement of claim. In the present case, there is no documentary evidence that such investigation took place and the said accident is very much doubtful and issuance of the first insurance policy is also very much in doubt and further, there is a gap of 25 days for renewal of the insurance policy. So, the complainant failed to prove his case of insurance claim beyond the reasonable doubt.

            With the above said discussion and under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is unable find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party insurance company and the complaint is liable to be dismissed without any reliefs asked for in the complaint.     

                                               

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs.

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 27^th day of June, 2016.

    

                  Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                         FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT :

 

 

Ex.A1    Customer copy of the purchase of the TATA SAFARI ‘V’ as per Inv. No.186 dated

              19.8.2010 from Coastal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Rajahmundry.

Ex.A2    United India Insurance Co. Ltd., original policy relating to the vehicle No.AP5BQ

              8485 period of insurance 26.7.2011 to the midnight of 25.7.2012.

Ex.A3    United India Insurance Co. Ltd., renewal notice of the policy.

Ex.A4    Receipt dt.16.10.2011 issued by Laasya Granite Metals, towards bringing up the

             damaged vehicle from the quarry (ii) receipt for Rs.2,500/- towards transport

             charges to carry the damaged vehicle and (iii) letter copy dt.17.10.2011 addressed to

             the Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajahmundry asking to bring the

             damaged vehicle to the workshop.

Ex.A5    The bill No.5-637 dt.24.4.2012 for Rs.8,11,380-84ps containing acknowledgement

              of the bill amount of spares; handling charges; VAT and other accessories.

Ex.A6    Survey report dt.16.7.2012 supplied by the opposite party along with its covering

             letter.

Ex.A7    The reply letter dt.19.11.2012 issued by the Divisional Manager, United India

              Insurance Co. Ltd., stating that the vehicle falls outside the purview of the policy

              issued and also stating that the loss was not caused during the period covered by the

              policy.

 

FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:-          

 

Ex.B1    Motor Spot Survey Report dt.18.8.2011 given by the V. Srinivasa Rao.

Ex.B2    Investigation report dt.17.9.2012 given by Mr. MS Prasad.

Ex.B3    Investigation report dt.19.12.2011 given by Mr. KV Siva Krishna Murthy.

Ex.B4    Investigation report dt.22.3.2013 given by Mr. Y. Bikshapathi.

Ex.B5    Policy No.151100/31/10/P000626384 for the period commencing from 1.7.2010 to

              the midnight of 30.6.2011 issued in the name of the complainant.

                 Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)