State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Divisional Manager National ... vs Bachina Sreenivasulu S/O.Kuberudu ... on 29 August, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.1507/2008 against C.C.No.135 of 2007, District Forum, Prakasam at Ongole. Between: The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited Division-VI, Mamatha Complex, 3rd Floor, Whites Road, Rayapettah, Chennai. Appellant/Opposite Party And: 1. Bachina Sreenivasulu S/o.Kuberudu, R/o.D.No.4-41, Chinna Mallavaram Village, Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd, Rep. by its Manager No.21, Paullos Road, Chennai-600 002. (Respondent No.2 impleaded as per the orders of the Honble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad vide orders in F.A.I.A.No.3019 of 2010 Dt.17.06.2011) Respondents/Complainants Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.Arun Kumar Tatigotla Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.A.Ramakrishna-R1 Mrs.Krishna L.Gahloth-R2 QUORUM: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President ) ***** This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company, the opposite party, against the order of the District Forum in directing it to pay Rs.1,61,165/- together with interest, compensation and costs of Rs.1,000/- each within four weeks and on failure to pay the same within that period awarded further compensation of Rs.2,000/-
The case of the complainant in brief is that he got his Ashok Leyland Tanker insured with the appellant, insurance company, for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- covering the period from 05-1-2005 to 04-1-2006. While so on 22-6-2005, it met with an accident. On information, one Ravindra Patel was appointed as spot surveyor. A case was registered by the police. He spent Rs.1,22,200/- towards replacement of spare parts in all he spent Rs.2,30,000/- towards repairs. The surveyor, however, estimated the loss at Rs.1,75,000/-. Later the insurance company agreed to settle the claim on non standard basis at Rs.33,375/- by letter dated 02-11-2006 addressed to him through Sundaram Finance Distribution Limited for which he did not agree.
Therefore, he filed the complaint claiming Rs.2,30,000/- together with interest, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs.
The insurance company resisted the case.
However, it admitted that a policy was issued covering the risk of the vehicle through Sundaram Finance Distribution Limited. The complainant had never informed about the accident nor it had appointed a surveyor. There was a memorandum of understanding (MOU for short) between it and M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd.,wherein M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd.,could appoint a surveyor only in case the claim is below Rs.50,000/-. M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd.,did not choose to inform them for appointment of a surveyor. As there is violation of terms of Memorandum of Understanding and it has no information about the accident, they settled the claim on non standard basis relying on the report of Mr.K.Giri Kumar, who was appointed by Sundaram Finance Distributors. It could appoint a surveyor only in case the claim is below Rs.50,000/-. When it protested, M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd.,gave assurance that it would follow MOU and agreed for settlement of the claim on non standard basis at Rs.33,375/-. Thereafter there was no response from either the complainant or from the Sundaram Finance Distributors. Their surveyor recommended an amount of Rs.48,620/- based on this report, it had settled the claim under non standard basis. Even now it is ready to pay Rs.33,375/- and there was no basis for the complainant to claim Rs.2,30,000/- and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The complainant in proof of his filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A1 to A24 while the opposite party filed affidavit evidence of its A.O. and filed Exs.B1 to B5.
The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the complainant had spent Rs.1,61,165/- towards repairs and therefore the said amount was directed to be paid with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of Ex.B3 i.e. 25-10-2006 till the date of realization together with compensation and costs of Rs.1,000/- each within four weeks and on failure to pay the same within that period awarded further compensation of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complainant did not inform about the accident as such it could not appoint any surveyor to assess the damage. Even otherwise, as per the MOU between it and Sundaram Finance Distributors, it was entitled to appoint surveyor if the claim is below Rs.50,000/-, if it exceeds, it was the insurance company that is entitled to appoint a surveyor. There is violation of MOU in not informing the accident and therefore it had settled the claim on non standard basis at Rs.33,375/- which it agreed to pay. The claim for Rs.2,30,000/- is highly excessive. None of the persons who issued the bills were examined and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed accordingly.
In the appeal, M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd., was impleaded as a party on the application filed by the insurance company.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by any mis-appreciation of fact or law in that regard?
It is an undisputed fact that the vehicle of the complainant was insured by the appellant covering the period from 05-1-2006 to 04-1-2006 for Rs.3,25,000/- vide policy Ex.A1. It met with an accident on 22-6-2005. The complainant asserted that he has informed about the accident to the appellant insurance company. A spot surveyor, A.Ravindra Patel, was appointed who inspected the vehicle and gave report on 26-6-2005. He filed the surveyor report, Ex.A2. It is a preliminary report noting the various damages.
The appellant insurance company took a strange plea that the factum of accident was not informed to it. It may stated herein that the complainant had taken the vehicle insurance from opposite party No.2, newly impleaded party, M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd., The appellant insurance company had entered into an MOU with the M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd., vide Ex.B1, to which the complainant is not a party and hence it is not binding him. Mr. B.Ravindra Reddy was appointed as spot surveyor and it is not known to the complainant who appointed him whether insurance company or in fact appointed by M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd., Clause 24 of MOU reads as follows:
24. NICL shall provide list of its approved surveyors to SFDL and shall keep this list updated from time to time. SFDL shall be authorized to appoint surveyors out of such list provided to carry out inspection and assessment of loss of vehicles that have met with accident, where the estimate for repairs is less than Rs.50,000/-. For all other claims, NICL shall appoint surveyor. Surveyor shall be appointed within one working day of report of accident. However, for Total loss claims, and claims exceeding estimate of 7.5 lakhs NICL shall appoint surveyor within 3 working days.
Now it contends that since the claim was more than Rs.50,000/-, the finance company could not have appointed surveyor nor the said survey could bind them.
By its letter dated 26-6-2006 under Ex.B2, the insurance company posed a question to the complainant marking a copy to the financier why the claim was not informed to the local office at Guntur when the estimated loss was at Rs.2,30,000/-.
Survey of the above claim was not appointed by our office local NIC office. Kindly let us know, who authorized you to appoint Mr.A.Ravindra Patel and Mr.Giri Kumar for re-inspection of the vehicle and final survey respectively.
Apart from Ex.B2, the appellant also filed Ex.B5, the Motor Survey report of Mr.K.Giri Kumar. From the letter, it looks as though he was appointed by the very insurance company.
It is not as though the complainant got the said person appointed to assess the loss. At any rate, he assessed the loss at Rs.48,620/-. This report is dated 10-8-2005. It may be stated herein that the insurance company having received the reports, Exs.A2 of A.Ravindra Patel and B5 of that of K.Giri Kumar , there is no reason why it has been questioning the survey reports and relying on the above clause in MOU. Obviously finding it difficult, it addressed letter dated 02-11-2006 under Ex.B4 to M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd., stating that it had settled the claim on non standard basis at Rs.33,375/-. It may be stated herein that the said settlement was unilateral.
It relied on Ex.B5, obviously as it was favourable to it. If neither the complainant nor the finance company informed about the survey, and if really the insurance company did not wish to rely on Ex.B5, it is not known how it could settle, relying on the said report and arrive at non standard basis at Rs.33,375/-.
The impleaded respondent denied that it had violated MOU. It contended that nobody knows what could be the loss, whether Rs.50,000/- or more than Rs.50,000/-. It maintained that the surveyors appointed are insurance surveyors and spot survey is conducted immediately on the date of accident at the instance of insurance company.
The District Forum after considering the evidence filed by the complainant, namely the various bills from the workshops, where he got the vehicle repaired besides purchase of spare parts covered under Exs.A3 to A13 and A14 bill issued by Lakshmi Narasimha Diesel and Mechanical works towards replacement of spare parts etc. opined that the complainant had spent Rs.1,61,165/- towards reports and therefore he was entitled to this amount.
Obviously to get over this order, the appellant impleaded M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd., in the appeal on the ground that it was liable to pay the said amount. M/s.Sundaram Finance Distribution Ltd., contends that it was not made a party all through. Only when an adverse order was passed, the insurance company filed an application to implead it as a party and after a gap of five years and by then the claim was barred by limitation against it. It also contended that the appellant insurance company having received the full premium for the subject vehicle and having issued insurance coverage, it was liable to settle the claim. The premise on which it was impleaded as a party was that, it was not informed about the accident and by virtue f the terms of MOU, it could not have appointed surveyor, more so when the claim was more than Rs.50,000/-. It contends that the version of the complainant that it had reported to the insurance company was not denied by the appellant insurance company and spot survey was conducted and the surveyors are insurance surveyors. It alleged that the insurance company intends to get relieved either by hook or crook and implicate it in order to throw burden on it.
A perusal of the record would undoubtedly show that the report of accident was informed to the insurance company. Having denied the appointment of surveyors A.Ravindra Patel and K.Giri Kumar, it could not have settled the claim based on final survey report on non standard basis at Rs.33,375/-.
Undoubtedly it intends to settle the claim for a lesser amount and deny the claim of the complainant though borne out by various bills and receipts. The very surveyor himself noted in his report that the vehicle was in the carriage of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Diesel Mechanical works, Guntur and Sri Shirdi Sai Rama Anjaneya Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., The complainant has filed the bills from the above said work shops, therefore, it cannot be said that are fabricated. Absolutely R2 has no say in this regard. When the claim was beyond Rs.50,000/-, the complainant by giving the estimate under Ex.A14 informed the insurance company the amounts that were spent by him. The insurance company belatedly raised the plea that it did not appoint surveyor obviously in order to get over the claims made by the complainant. To reiterate, the complainant is not a party to the MOU between the appellant and R2 and the terms of MOU do not bind the complainant. The insurance company is taking baseless pleas in order to deny the just claim of the complainant. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.29-08-2011