BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
Thursday, 19th January 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 65 / 2016
C. Ramanjaneyulu Reddy, S/o Chinna Narayana Reddy,
aged about 40 years, Hindu, Residing at 1/1398,
Near Rajyalakshimi Theatre, Bhavanipet,
Pulivendula Town, YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kadapa,
Near Murali Theatre, Kadapa city.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kadapa, 21/361,
Dwaraka Towers, Near 7 Roads Circle, Kadapa city. ………Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 5-01-2017 in the presence of Sri V. Eswar Reddy, Advocate for Complainant and Sri K. Rama Kondaiah, Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- It is submitted that the Complainant is the owner of the Diesel Tanker bearing No. AP 04 TT : 4568 and he purchased availing loan form M/s Sundaram finance Ltd., Vijayawada branch for his livelihood. The Complainant is the resident of Pulivendula town, YSR District. He got insured the vehicle with the Respondent company and its policy bearing No. 0509043114 P106613293 and the policy valid from 21-11-2014 to 20-11-2015. The Complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 28-8-2015 at about 9.00 a.m near Dudhaluru village and Mandal, within the jurisdiction of Duthaluru police station, Ongole district in accident, the Complainant’s vehicle was damaged. The Complainant informed to R2 regarding the accident and his vehicle was damage. The R2 send his company surveyor and he went to the accident place and he took photograph of the damaged vehicle and conducted the spot survey. He assessed the vehicle loss and made report to the R2 office.
3. It is submitted that after the accident, the Complainant took his vehicle to N.S. Rama Rao body works Medavakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu State for repairs which occurred in the accident. The said N.S. Rama Rao body works medavakam, repaired the vehicle and cost of repair amount bill of Rs. 1,68,190/- given to Complainant and he was paid vehicle repaired bill amount of Rs. 1,68,190/- to the said works company on 10-9-2015 later the Complainant submitted all the vehicle records original bills issued by the N.s. Rama Rao body works and claim form to R2 at requested by him, but the respondents company had not settle his claim amount. The Complainant got issued legal notice to the Respondent on 13-6-2016 to settle his vehicle repaired cost bill amount of Rs. 1,68,190/- with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of given records to the R2 the respondents was received the legal notice and R2 got issued reply legal notice to his counsel on 22-6-2016 the O.D claim of vehicle bearing No. AP 04 TT : 4568 had been settled for an amount of Rs. 43,600/- on 10-6-2016 as full and final discharge of their liability as per the technical surveyor assessment.
4. The Complainant not agreed for the above settlement amount of Rs. 43,600/- by R2 and the Complainant got issued re reply legal notice on 28-6-2016 to R2 reply notice dt. 22-6-2016 and same was received by the R2 and he was not gave any reply notice to the reply notice dt. 28-6-2016 to the Complainant till date. The Respondents technical surveyor not properly assessed the Complainant’s vehicle repair damage cost. The N.S. Rama Rao body works medavakkam, Chennai imposed the vehicle total repair cost of Rs. 1,68,190/- but the Complainant not know which basis the Respondent technical surveyor assessed the vehicle damage cost of Rs. 43,600/-. As per the insurance policy the vehicle own damage risk covers up to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Hence, the Complainant insured his vehicle value of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Respondent company is liable the Complainant vehicle damage cost up to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Respondents Company failed to settle the Complainant’s vehicle repair bill amount of Rs. 1,68,190/- to the Complainant till date.
5. The Complainant is a consumer as he insured the vehicle with the Respondents company and in the event of any accident occurred during the validity period of policy is bound to pay the entire vehicle damage repair bill amount of Rs. 1,68,190/-. The Complainant entered into contract with the Respondents company on the date of insurance of policy i.e. 21-11-2014 and the same was in force at the time of accident. The Respondents company had breached the contract and he is liable to pay and settle the claim of the Complainant. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents company non settlement of the Complainant’s vehicle damage repair bill amount of Rs. 1,69,190/-. Hence, the complaint.
6. The Complainant therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to directing that (a) the Respondents to pay Rs. 1,68,190/- towards the claim i.e. vehicle damage repaired bill amount along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of received of claim till the date of realization of the amount, (b) directing the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony (c) directing the Respondents to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of the complaint and (d) order pass such other reliefs or relief as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
7. Counter field by the Respondents 1 & 2. The Complainant filed by the complaint is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The Complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations mentioned, except those, which are specifically admitted herein by this respondent.
8. United India insurance Co. Ltd., is a general insurance company registered under the companies Act 1956 and carrying insurance business as licensed by IRDA under the provisions of the Insurance Act 1938 and it is an under taken by the Government of India. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained policy for his vehicle bearing No. AP 04 TT : 4568 the said policy was in force at the time of the alleged accident. The said policy covers the own damage risk along with third party risk, as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
9. It is submitted that after the intimation received from the insured that his vehicle got damaged in the accident this Respondents appointed a competent surveyor to assess lose to the petitioner’s vehicle. The surveyor by name R Deva Rajan, visited the accident spot and also examined the vehicle. The surveyor assessed the loss of damage to their petitioner vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The assessment of the surveyor this respondent settled the claim for Rs. 43,600/- and same was informed to the petitioner but the petitioner did not accept the same and filed the present case by stating the false grounds.
10. It is submitted that the policy issued by the respondent company to the petitioner is governed by the instructions of the IMT rules. According to the policy the damages of the Mud guard, side guard, Manhole washer, Mahole bolt, mud flap painting were not cover, as the petitioner has not paid the premium for that, hence, it is not mentioned in the policy that to cover the IMT 23, hence, the petitioner not entitled to claim for the damages of the above said items. Further insurance company will assess the loss after the depreciation on parts according to the IMT rules GR.9 that the Insurance Company will appoint technically competent mechanical or auto mobile Engineers to assess the loss after getting accidental intimation, this appointed engineer will assess the loss amount taking into cognizance of the depreciation of various parts of the vehicle depending upon the material used in such parts and also the model of the vehicle. In this case the vehicle is 2012 model. The appointed surveyor applied depreciation basing on the model of the vehicle and arrived correctly the payable compensation which works out to Rs. 43,600/-. Hence, after considering the above condition only the company concluded the loss of the petitioner’s vehicle but the petitioner by knowing facts he filed the petition with malafide intention to get unlawful gain only.
11. The contents of the prayer clause are denied in toto. The claim was settled as per the terms and conditions of the policy document which is the evidence of the insurance contract and part that there is no contractual obligation on the part of the Opposite parties to pay any amount of whatsoever nature to the Complainant. The Complainant is not eligible for Rs. 1,69,190/- towards the claim amount along with 24% interest towards claim amount Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and he is not eligible to get costs of the complaint and legal expenses or any other amount of whatsoever nature amount of otherwise. There is no deficiency in service carelessness or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite parties and should be dismissed with costs to the company.
12. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents or not?
iii. To what relief?
13. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A19 were marked and on behalf of Respondents Exs. B1 to B3 were marked.
14. Point Nos. 1 & 2. As seen from averments of the complaint and counter it is very clear that the Complainant had taken a policy from Respondent No. 2 under Ex. A3. Ex. A1 and A2 clearly shows that the Complainant is owner of the vehicle. Ex. A4 clearly shows that the Complainant had issued legal notice to the Respondents for settlement of damage of his vehicle claim of Rs. 1,68,190/-. Ex. A3 and B1 clearly show that the policy was inforce at the time of accident and now here in the policy it was mentioned that the parts of the vehicle will not cover under the policy. As per Ex. A3 and B1 the policy was inforce at the time of accident. So it is the bounded duty of the Respondents to settle the claim of the Complainant, after submitting the claim form as the Respondents 1 & 2. So there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents under these circumstances and evidence on record the Complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him.
15. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondents 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 1,65,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand only) towards claim of damaged vehicle bearing No. AP 04 TT : 4568, to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards mental agony to the Complainant and to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 19th January 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Opposite parties : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex: A1 P/c of vehicle repair bill amount of Rs. 1,68,190/- issued by N.S. Rama Rao body works dt. 10-9-2015.
Ex. A2 P/c of vehicle bearing No. AP 04 TT : 4568 registration certificate and vehicle permit.
Ex. A3 P/c of insurance policy issued by R2.
Ex. A4 office copy of legal notice dt. 13-6-2016.
Ex. A5 Reply legal notice dt. 22-6-2016 issued by R2.
Ex. A6 office copy of re-reply notice dt. 28-6-2016.
Ex. A7 Postal receipts (two).
Ex. A8 Acknowledgement cards two.
Ex. A9 Postal receipt and acknowledgement card.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents. -
Ex. B1 P/c of policy copy issued by the United India insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa.
Ex. B2 Copy of private and confidential motor final survey report dt. 26-9-2015.
Ex. B3 P/c of IMT rules regarding IMT rules GR.9 and the IMT 23.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri V. Eswara Reddy, Advocate for Complainant.
- Sri K. Rama Kondiah, Advocate for Opposite parties.
B.V.P.
