Ejjagani Mastan, s/o.Biksham, age: 25 years, occu: owner
of Auto bearing No.AP-20-W-9045, (AP-20-T-RT-8550),
r/o.Thummalapally, Konijerla mandal, Khammam District
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its
Branch Manager, 4th floor, Lohiya Towes, D.No.40-9/1, opp.
Nirmala convent, Vijayawada.
This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.G.Seetha Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that;
The complainant purchased Bajaj auto, bearing No.AP-20-W-9045, (AP-20-T-RT-8550) from Venkataramana Bajaj, Khammam and at the time of purchase, the opposite party issued comprehensive policy bearing No.35560406 for a period of one year and according to the said policy, the opposite party has to pay the IDV in the event of accident, caused damages to the insured vehicle and also submitted that on 12-9-2006 while he was going to Kalluru to perform pooja, the auto of the complainant dashed the tree, to escape the car which is coming from opposite direction and got damaged. Immediately, informed the same to the financier and sent claim form by claiming the damages. The opposite party conducted final survey through an independent surveyor and the surveyor assessed the damages to a tune of Rs.25,000/- and after that the opposite party addressed a letter, dt.15-11-2006, expressing their inability to settle the claim of the complainant by the reason of permit is not valid at the time of accident and closed the claim as no claim. The complainant further submitted that to evade their liability, the opposite party playing tactics and closed the claim of the complainant, it amounts to deficiency of service and it is the duty of the opposite party to reimburse Rs.25,000/- under IDV of the policy. As such the complainant approached the forum for redressal along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- towards IDV together with interest at 24% P.A. from the date of accident and to award Rs.15,000/- towards damages and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed
i) Letter addressed by the opposite party, dt.15-11-2006 to
ii)Xerox copy of letter addressed by the opposite party,
dt.16-09-2006 to the complainant.
iii) Xerox copy of Insurance cover note issued by the
iv) Xerox copy of Cash memo cum invoice, dt.26-6-2006
v) Xerox copy of Permit (Form-PC)
vi) Xerox copy of certificate of registration,
3. After receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter by denying the averments made in the complaint.
4. In the counter, the opposite party admitted the issuance of policy bearing No.35560506, valid from 24-6-2006 to 23-6-2007 on the auto bearing No.AP-20-T/RT-8550 and also admitted the appointment of an independent surveyor, who conducted the final survey and also submitted that after examination of survey report, it was revealed that the permit is not valid at the time of accident and no criminal case was registered regarding the alleged accident. As such the claim of the complainant was closed as no claim and there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Both the parties filed written arguments and on behalf of opposite party, the policy copy was marked as Ex.B.1.
6. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties, now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed?
P O I N T:
7. As seen from the averments of the complaint and counter, there is no dispute regarding the issuance of policy bearing No.35560406 over the auto bearing No.AP-20-W-9045, (AP-20-T-RT-8550). The only dispute is with regard to the accident and validity of the permit of the vehicle. According to the contents of counter, the opposite party deputed an independent surveyor, who conducted final survey and according to the survey report, the permit of the vehicle was not valid at the time of accident and the opposite party also taken an another objection regarding the non registration of criminal case and non filing of concerned documents, but it is the case of the complainant that it is the responsibility of the opposite party to pay IDV amount in the event of accident, which causes damage to the insured vehicle and also alleged that to evade their liability, the opposite party closed the claim of the complainant. In view of the aforementioned averments and perused the documents, it was observed that the complainant failed to establish his case by filing necessary documents and also failed to file any documentary proof with regard to the date of accident, even though there is a dispute with regard to the date of accident according to the letter dated 15-11-2006, addressed by the opposite party and the averments of the complaint and with regard to the permit is concerned, according to the complaint, the permit is valid at the time of accident, but according to the Form-PC the date of issuance of permit is on 1-8-2006. As such the complainant has to prove his case by filing required documents and the burden lies on him. In the instant case, the complainant failed to file necessary documents like F.I.R. and charge sheet etc., and also failed to file any documentary proof in this regard. In the absence of any such proof, we cannot come to a conclusion in favour of the complainant and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 12th day of November, 2009.