DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR PRESENT:- Sri S.Chinnaiah, B.A., B.L., President Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Member Wednesday, the 21st day of May,2008 C.C.No.13/2007 Between: P.Narasimhulu S/o P.Sivaiah, LIC Agent, D.No.1-616-19/A2, Water Tank Road Kadiri Town, Anantapur District. … Complainant Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Subash Road Anantapur. …. Opposite Party This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Y.Nagaraju and Sri L.Rajiv Reddy, advocates for the complainant and Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: O R D E R 1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.33,000/-and award costs of the complaint. 2. The contents as set-forth in the complaint in brief are that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle Maruti Zen bearing No.AP-02-D-9669 and the same was insured with the opposite party under the policy bearing No.051001/31/04/00809 and the said policy was in force till midnight of 15-10-2005. It is further stated that on 13-10-2005 at about 10.30 P.M. the complainant was returning in the said vehicle with his family members from Madanapalli to Kadiri and that he was driving the vehicle. When the vehicle reached near the Railway Crossing at Burakayalakota Village, a lorry came suddenly in opposite direction and the complainant took the vehicle to a side at the speed braker erected on the road. While the vehicle was negotiating at the speed braker, the major part of the vehicle i.e. case transmission left and case T.M. Rod, Zen with T/M shaft came into contact with the speed braker protuding on the road. He also heard big sound due to impact but as the vehicle was moving, he drove the same for about 3 to 4 Kilometers. When the vehicle reached Burakayalakota Sub Station, the movements of the vehicle paralyzed as all the gears of the vehicle failed. Since he was travelling with his family members, he could not wait at the spot. Since the damage is caused due to speed braker erected on the road, he did not think of giving any police complaint regarding the incident. Virtually, there is no meaning in preferring the complaint regarding the damage to the vehicle, which resulted while the vehicle was taken down from the road at the speed breaker to avoid collision of the car with the lorry. It is further stated that the complainant brought back the vehicle to Madanapalle, leaving his family members in the bus to Kadiri and on the next day got the vehicle examined by the mechanic at a garage in Madanapalle town. After thorough examination, the mechanic informed that the major parts and some minor parts of the engine had been damaged and become waste and they have to be replaced. Hence, the complainant immediately informed the same to the opposite party and their officials concerned by phone. The opposite party assured to arrange Insurance Surveyor to assess the damages. In the meanwhile, the complainant also consulted various authorized dealers of the spare parts by phone about the availability of the required spare parts and finally got the same purchased the required spare parts at the cost of Rs.20,831/- on 15-10-2005 from R.K.S. Motor Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad under cash bill. The complainant had also incurred the expenses of the garage for fixing the spare parts to the vehicle in the place of the damaged parts at the cost of Rs.2,000/- . In the meantime, the Insurance Surveyor also visited the garage, inspected the vehicle and took the estimation of the damages to the vehicle. It is further stated that the complainant submitted his claim for payment of the insurance amount for the loss occasioned to him on account of the damage to the vehicle. The said claim was registered as Claim No.051001/31-05/00018. The complainant made representation by his personal visits to the office of the opposite party and also contacted the opposite party by phone. But the legitimate claim of the complainant for insurance amount was not considered and the complainant is not paid any amount though eight months have been lapsed. The complainant also subjected to mental depression and he was made to contact the opposite party several times for his claim, which was not being considered properly and postponed time and again without any justifiable excuse. However, all the while the opposite party was assured to arrange payment of insurance amount. Finally, the opposite party served a letter bearing No.051000/Motor-OD/2006-07 dt.29-05-2006, repudiating the legitimate claim of the complainant by giving some untenable reasons. It is further submitted that the grounds/reasons assigned in the said letter of the opposite party are absolutely unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim. Thus, the case of the complainant. 3. The opposite party filed a counter opposing the contents of the complaint. The opposite party denied the alleged accident to the vehicle of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint and the damages caused to the said vehicle including the date as stated in the complaint. It is stated that the complainant has deliberately avoided the spot survey with an ulterior motive and in order to get wrongful gain from the Insurance Company and grossly violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as such the complaint is liable to be rejected straightaway. It is further submitted that there is abnormal delay in giving intimation to the opposite party about the alleged accident to the vehicle in question on the alleged date and that the complainant has violated one of the material conditions of the Insurance Policy and as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation for the alleged damages. The complainant has intentionally avoided in reporting about the alleged accident to the concerned police with an ulterior motive and that the very fact that the complainant did not prefer any complaint to the concerned about the alleged accident is the positive proof of the falsity of the alleged claim. It is further submitted that since there was no such accident to the vehicle of the complainant on the alleged date, the complainant has not preferred any complaint to the concerned police and in order to avoid the police investigation in this regard. It is stated that the complainant has grossly failed in establishing the place of alleged accident, cause of accident and date of accident and alleged damages caused to the vehicle. It is submitted that the complainant has deliberately dismantled the vehicle after the alleged accident without any pre-inspection by one of the officials/supervisors of the opposite party and that the complainant has intentionally avoided the officials of the opposite party to know the nature of the alleged damages and extent of alleged damages and as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant. The complainant has not complied with the necessary requirements of the opposite party Company by not submitting the relevant documents as required under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and as such there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. It is stated that the bills submitted by the complainant are nothing but created for the purpose of making unjust claim for the alleged damages caused to the said vehicle Maruti Zen and as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. It is submitted that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the opposite party Company as there is no deficiency in service and that the Insurance Company has rejected the claim of the complainant on certain facts. No negligence or fraud and default committed by the opposite party. It is stated that the issues involved raise complicated question of fact. The issues raised can not be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence. Such elaborate scrutiny and settlement can be satisfactorily undertaken and performed only in a civil suit in a competent civil court and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The claim for interest is not tenable either on the ground of usage and trade custom and the claim being one for the damages and no interest can be claimed on the damages. The amount claimed by the complainant under different heads towards compensation is highly excessive, arbitrary and out of proportion and that he is not entitled for any amount. The claim for a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head damages for mental agony is not tenable under law. It is stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the opposite party and that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as enumerated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The vehicle Maruti Zen of the complainant was not being used for the purpose covered by the Insurance Policy as on the alleged accident and as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation for the alleged damages. Hence, to dismiss the complaint with costs. 4. Heard arguments both sides. 5. The point that arises for consideration herein is: Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ? 6. Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.B1 to B4 are marked on either side. Ex.A1 is the Insurance Policy bearing No.051001/31/04/00809 relating to Maruti Zen of the complainant. Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of Retail Cash Memo dt.15-10-2005 for the purchase of spare parts. Ex.A3 is repudiation letter dt.29-05-2006 of the opposite party addressed to the complainant. Ex.B1 is the Insurance Policy bearing No.051001/31/04/00000809 relating to Maruti Zen of the complainant. Ex.A1 & B1 are one and the same. Ex.B2 is the Claim Intimation dt.17-10-2005 submitted by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.B3 is Motor Claim Form dt.06-12-2005 submitted by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.B4 is the repudiation letter dt.29-05-2006 of the opposite party addressed to the complainant. 7. POINT:- We have gone through the contents of the complaint, counter, sworn affidavits of both sides, documents filed herein and the material available on record. Before entering into the merits and demerits of the case, it is just and necessary to discuss the arguments adduced on either side. 8. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Zen bearing No.AP-02-D-9669 and the same was insured with the opposite party bearing Policy No.051001/31/04/00809 as evidenced under Ex.A1 and B1, which are one and the same. The policy was in force from 16-10-2004 to 15-10-2005 as seen under Ex.A1. These are admitted facts. 9. The contention of the complainant is that on 13-10-2005 while he was driving the vehicle Maruti Zen belongs to him with his family members from Madanapalle to Kadiri and when the vehicle came near the Railway crossing at Burayakayalakota Village at about 10.30 P.M., the lorry came in opposite direction suddenly and on seeing the lorry, he took the car to a side at the speed braker erected on the road. His next contention is that while the vehicle was negotiating at the speed braker, the major parts of the vehicle came into contact with the speed braker and as a result the gears of the car failed. As the car was damaged due to speed braker erected on the road, he did not think of giving any complaint to the Police. His further contention is that after sending his family members in a bus to Kadiri, he brought the damaged car to garage at Madanapalle. His further contention is that after thorough examination of the car, the mechanic informed him that major parts and some minor parts of the engine have been damaged and they have to be replaced. His further contention is that as informed by the mechanic, he purchased the required spare parts on 15-10-2005 for Rs.20,831/- from M/s R.K.S.Motor Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad under Ex.A2 cash bill. His further contention is that since the damage is caused due to speed braker erected on the road, he did not think of giving any Police complaint regarding the incident. His further contention is that after taking the vehicle to the garage at Madanapalle, he informed about the accident to the opposite party by Phone to arrange the surveyor and to assess the damages. He incurred a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards labour charges for fixing the spare parts to the car. His next contention is that the Insurance Surveyor visited the garage, inspected the vehicle and took estimation of the damages. His next contention is that he submitted the claim intimation under Ex.B2 dt.17-10-2005 and claim form under Ex.B3 to the opposite party for payment of claim amount, but his request was not considered and the opposite party repudiated his claim as evidenced under Ex.A3. 10. On the other hand, the opposite party is disputing the contention of the complainant and contended that the complainant has deliberately avoided the spot survey with an ulterior motive and in order to get wrongful gain from the opposite party. His further contention is that there is abnormal delay in giving information to the opposite party about the alleged accident to the said vehicle. His further contention is that the complainant has intentionally avoided in reporting about the alleged accident to the concerned Police with an ulterior motive and that the very fact of not preferring any complaint to the Police is the positive proof of falsity of the alleged claim. His next contention is that there was no accident to the vehicle of the complainant on the alleged date as come forward by the complainant. His further contention is that the complainant has deliberately dismantled the vehicle after the alleged accident without any pre-inspection by the opposite party to know the nature of the alleged damages. His further contention is that the complainant has not complied with the necessary requirements of the opposite party in submitting the relevant documents. There is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. His next contention is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the issues raised can not be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence. Such elaborate scrutiny and settlement can be satisfactorily undertaken and performed only in civil suit in a competent civil court. His next contention is that the amount claimed under various heads is highly excessive and out of proportion. His last contention is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the opposite party and that the complainant is not a consumer as enumerated under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 11. After going through the rival contentions and material available on record, we are satisfied that the contention of the opposite party is too far away from acceptance. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the complainant is the owner of the car Maruti Zen and he insured the same under Ex.A1 and B1, which are one and the same policy with the opposite party and that the policy was in force by the date of accident. As seen from the records in the case of the complainant, the accident occurred on 13-10-2005 at about 10.30 P.M. near Railway crossing at Burakayalakota Village while car was coming from Madanapalle to go to Kadiri. As seen from the records, the complainant is LIC Agent. Thus, it is not in dispute that the complainant is owner of the car in question. 12. Regarding the accident, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party contended that the date of accident itself is doubtful as no document is filed that the accident occurred on 13-10-2005 at 11.00 P.M. His next contention is that as per the terms of Ex.B1 Insurance Policy, the policy is valid from 16-10-2004 to 15-10-2005 midnight. His next contention is that on 17-10-2005 i.e. after expiry of two days of Insurance Policy, the alleged incident was reported to the opposite party by the complainant and so the version of the complainant that the accident occurred on 13-10-2005 can not be accepted. His next contention is that if really the accident occurred on 13-10-2005 nothing would have been prevented the complainant to complain the same either to the Police or the opposite party officials, but he did not do so. So it implies that no accident was occurred. It is no doubt true that there is any amount of force in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party for the reason that the complainant has not given sufficient explanation for not informing about the accident either to the opposite party officials at Madanapalle or to the Police. It is to be remembered that the complainant has asserted in complaint, sworn affidavit and claim form that the accident occurred on 13-10-2005 during night time. After the accident, he brought the vehicle to Madanapalle and sending his family members in a bus to Kadiri. So the situation at the time of accident, implies that the complainant was in worry. Hence, simply because the complainant has not informed about the accident to the opposite party officials, it is not a tenable ground to reject the entire claim of the complainant. On the other hand, as the damages caused to the car when the complainant has taken the car to a side at the speed braker on seeing the opposite lorry, he has not given any report to the Police because there is no negligence or otherwise caused on the part of the opposite side vehicle. Simply because he did not give report to the Police, the entire claim of the complainant can not be rejected. On the other hand, the complainant has insured his vehicle under Ex.A1 with the opposite party by paying certain amount and so certainly he is a consumer. When the vehicle was insured with the opposite party, certainly there is an obligation on the part of the opposite party to pay damages and as such it can not be said that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thus, we are satisfied that the accident occurred on 13-10-2005 at 10.30 P.M. near Railway Crossing at Burakayalakota Village, the complainant has come forward with this complaint and that this Forum is having jurisdiction to entertain the same. 13. The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.33,000/- under various heads. He filed Ex.A2 cash bill for purchasing the spare parts for Rs.20,831/-. The complainant though claimed a sum of Rs.20,831/- under Ex.A2, he has not filed affidavit of the person, who issued Ex.A2 and on the other hand the complainant has not examined the person, who informed for purchasing of spare parts and that he spent Rs.2,000/- for fixing the spare parts to the vehicle. The complainant is claiming Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, which is highly excessive. However, considering the circumstances of the case and as the vehicle was damaged in the accident, the complainant must have spent some amount and he must have suffered mental agony. 14. Under the circumstances, we feel satisfied that granting of Rs.18,500/- as lump sum amount on various heads and also on considering the depreciation of the vehicle, towards damages is quite reasonable and meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we hold that as there is every deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs.18,500/- towards damages. 15. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.18,500/- (Rupees eighteen thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs of the complaint. This order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 21st day of May, 2008. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT: NIL OPPOSITE PARTY: NIL EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT Ex.A1 - Insurance Policy bearing No.051001/31/04/00809 relating to Maruti Zen of the complainant. Ex.A2 - Xerox copy of Retail Cash Bill dt.15-10-2005 for the purchase of spare parts. Ex.A3 - Repudiation letter dt.29-05-2006 of the opposite party addressed to the complainant. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY Ex.B1 - Insurance Policy bearing No.051001/31/04/00809 relating to Maruti Zen of the complainant. Ex.B2 -Claim Intimation dt.17-10-2005 submitted by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.B3 - Motor Claim Form dt.06-12-2005 submitted by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.B4 - Repudiation letter dt.29-05-2006 of the opposite party addressed to the complainant. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN
......................Smt.S.Lalitha
......................Sri S.Chinnaiah | | 
