DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010.
COMPLAINANT

BY-SRI.H.SHARANABASAVARAJ,

SRI.K.G.BASAVARAJ,

ADVOCATES, BELLARY.

//VS//


SRI. U. SREEDHAR,

S/O NARAYANAPPA,

R/AT H.NO.8/35, KANEKAL CROSS,

KANEKAL MANDALAM,

ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH,

NOW R/AT MILLERPET, BELLARY.
RESPONDENTS

Respondent No.1: Ex-parte.

BY-SRI. N.JATHAPPA,

SRI.B.V.SURESH,

ADVOCATES, BELLARY.

For Respondent No.2.

1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

D.NO.10, DWARAKA, III FLOOR, 79,

GANDHI SALAI,

CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 034.

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,

MAIN ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR,

BELLARY.

//JUDGEMENT//

Sri. S.M.Reddy, President.

This is the complaint filed by above named Complainant under Sec-12 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the Respondents seeking damages caused to his vehicle in an accident under the Insurance Policy issued by the Respondents and also compensation towards deficiency of service etc.

2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that;

The Complainant is the absolute registered owner of lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-21/X-4333. Since the Complainant had availed loan from M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, Bellary the said vehicle was hypothecated to the said Financier. The Complainant had insured the said vehicle with the Respondents through the Financier under an Insurance Policy bearing No.412000/31/2007/25944 which was valid from 06/09/2007 to 27/03/2008 and it was a comprehensive Policy covering all the risks. Further it is the case of Complainant that, on 06/09/2007 the said vehicle of Complainant met with an accident on NH-4 near Chennai in which the said vehicle was damaged and information of said accident was given to jurisdictional Police and also to the Respondents. The Respondents had appointed a Surveyor to inspect the said vehicle and assess the damages and he has assessed the damages submitted his report stating that the vehicle was damaged in the said accident to an extent of Rs.1,60,000/-. The Complainant has carried out the repairs of the said vehicle. The Complainant had handed over all the required documents to the Surveyor as demanded by him. Subsequently, the Complainant has submitted his claim to the Respondents by producing all the bills and though the Respondents had intimated that they will settle the claim immediately, but they failed to settle the claim. So ultimately the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated: 11-09-2008 and though the said notice was duly served, the Respondents neither settled the claim nor gave any reply which amounted to negligence and deficiency of service. Hence, the Complainant is constrained to file this complaint. The Complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards spare parts charges and repairs of the vehicle together with interest @ 24% p.a. from 06-09-2007 and has also claimed idle halting charges of Rs.50,000/- damages of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- from the Respondents.

3. Though the notice of this complaint was duly served on both the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 has not appeared, so the Respondent No.1 is placed exparte. The Respondent No.2 which is the Branch Office of Respondent No.1 at Bellary has appeared and filed its Written Version wherein, the Respondent No.2 has not disputed that the Complainant is the registered owner of said lorry and that it has been insured with the Respondents for the period from 06-09-2007 to 27-03-2008. But the Respondent No.2 has denied all other allegations made in the complaint. According to the Respondent No.2 admittedly the accident took place at Chennai and as per the address furnished by the Complainant he is resident of Kanekal Mandalam in Ananthapur District and he has conveniently stated that he is residing at Bellary and Policy is taken at Chennai Office from the Respondent No.1. Therefore, this Forum does not get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further it is the case of Respondent No.2 that, the Complainant has not produced copy of D.L. or original D.L. for verification and alleged accident was reported to Kaveripakkam Police station, but FIR and Charge Sheet was not produced before the Respondents or the Surveyor concerned and as per the Survey report, the Surveyor has verified the R.C. book whereas the Pages of Fitness particulars were not found and Road Tax was paid upto 31-03-2007 only. Therefore, the Complainant has contravened the terms and conditions of Policy. Hence, the Respondents are not liable to pay any damages. Further it is the case of Respondents that, the Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.71,000/- but as per the bills submitted the net liability works out to Rs.50,743/- . Therefore, if this Forum come to the conclusion that the Respondents liable to pay damages and in that regard the Respondents are only liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,743/- only since there is no inordinate delay, latches, negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Respondents to settle the claim. On these grounds, he has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit evidence as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and closed his side. As against this, the Respondent No.2 has filed the affidavit evidence of its Divisional Manager as R.W.1 and got marked document Ex.R.1 Surveyor report and closed its sides. The Respondent No.2 filed written arguments. Since the Complainant and his counsel did not avail the opportunity of advancing arguments given to him, we proceed to dispose of the complaint on merits on the basis of evidence on record.