State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Divisional Manager, National ... vs K.Narsimha Reddy, S/O.Shiva ... on 22 July, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.1590/2006 against C.C.No.601/2005, District Forum-1, Hyderabad. Between The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Ameerpet Branch, Opp: Hyderabad Bottling Company, 778/6, Punjagutta, Hyderabad 500 016. ...Appellant/ Opp.party And K.Narsimha Reddy, S/o.Shiva Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occupation :Agriculture, R/o.Plot No.33, Shahpur Nagar, IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. ... Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.Katta Laxmi Prasad Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.T.Damodar QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE Incharge President AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Order (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) *** This appeal is directed against the order dt.21st day of August, 2006 of the District Forum-1, Hyderabad made in C.C.No.601/2005, whereunder, the District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the opp.party to settle the claim within four months, from the date of the order and in default of compliance of the order, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month till the settlement of the claim and the opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards the costs of the complaint.
The appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.601/2005. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is a registered owner of the truck bearing no.AP 28 T-7096 and he insured the vehicle for an estimated value of Rs.6 lakhs with the opposite party vide their policy no.550 213/97/6303163, which is valid from 30.01.98 to 29.01.99 and it is a renewal policy.
While so, on 10.6.1998, when the driver of the complainant Mr.T.Bal Reddy, S/o.Eeswar Reddy was proceeding with sand load from Thurakapally to Hyderabad, when reached the outskirts of Malkapur, there was head on collision, between A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing no.AP-9A-1755 and the truck of the complainant, thereby both the vehicles damaged extensively. The policy was in force as on the date of the accident i.e. 10.6.1998. The complainant informed about the accident to the opposite party requesting for arranging survey to assess the loss and to settle the claim. The opposite party had not taken steps and closed the claim as No Claim. The complainant suffered a lot due to the negligent attitude of the opposite party and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, hence the complainant prayed the District Forum to direct the opp.parties to pay Rs.6 lakhs towards the insurance claim and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs.
Resisting the complaint, the opposite party filed counter/written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint as false and contended that the complainant is not involved in the alleged accident, which has taken place on 10.6.1998 and there is a delay of four years in informing the opposite party about the accident. The complainant has failed to furnish the relevant and necessary required documents. The complainant, for the first time, has informed the opposite party, through a letter dt.30.4.2002, about the alleged accident, but the complainant did not mention, about the date of the accident. There was an abnormal delay of about four years on the part of the complainant, in lodging the FIR. before the concerned police and before the opposite party and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party, therefore the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
During the course of enquiry, before the District Forum, the complainant filed Exs.A1 to A8 and the opposite parties filed Exs.B1 to B6 in support of their respective contentions.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties, and on consideration of material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, and passed the order as aforesaid.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party insurance company preferred this appeal, urging that the District Forum failed to see that as per Ex.A7, the claim was already repudiated and there is hardly anything to settle. That the District Forum failed to see that the alleged accident was on 10.6.1998 and the intimation regarding the alleged accident is given on 30.4.2002 and the claim was submitted on 09.06.2003 (Ex.B2) and correctly the claim was repudiated. That the District Forum failed to see that the complainant wilfully prevented the appellant company, to cause the required service and did not explain, as to why the vehicle was left at the police station and is lying there, even now, without any repairs and that the District Forum failed to see that the contents of the FIR and final report lost their credence being in retrospect. The appellant finally prayed for allowing of the appeal.
The Respondent/complainant filed FAIA. No.1550/2013 praying to receive the receipt dt.15/06/1998 and Claim Intimation letter dt.22.6.1998 on to the file as additional evidence and after hearing both parties, the petition was allowed and the documents were received as Exs.A9 and A10.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the truck bearing no.AP 28 T -7096 and he insured the vehicle with the opposite party, for an estimated value of Rs.6 lakhs vide their policy bearing no.550213/97/6303163 (Ex.A1) which is valid from 30.1.1998 to 29.1.1999.
As per the complaint, the case of the complainant is that on 10.06.1998, while the driver of the complainant was proceeding with sand load from Thurakapally to Hyderabad, when he reached the outskirts of Malkapur, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP-9Z-1755 and the complainants truck had an head on collision, thereby, both the vehicles got damaged extensively. The opposite party insurance company, denied the above case of the complainant. In view of the denial of the case of the complainant, by the opposite party, the complainant has to prove the above said accident.
In order to prove the accident, said to have taken place, on 10.6.1998, the complainant filed Ex.A2 copy of the FIR issued by the SHO., Thurakpally police station, Ex.A3 copy of Panchanama, Ex.A4 copy of the Charge Sheet, Ex.A9 payment receipt original bearing no.363453 dt.15.06.1998. A perusal of Exs.A2, A3 and A4 made it clear that the complainant has not reported the accident immediately, to the concerned police, after the alleged accident, but he choose to file a private complaint , after a lapse of more than four years, from the date of the alleged accident. The complainant, in his private complaint lodged before the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM), Bhongiri stated that he came to know about the theft of total lorry just five days after the date of alleged accident. But he did not take any action immediately. That apart, the complainant has not taken any steps, either to safeguard the vehicle, which was lying at the alleged place of accident for more than four years, nor has reported the matter to the statutory authorities or the opposite parties in time, as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
In the complaint, the complainant has stated that the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus and the vehicle of the complainant collided, which resulted in damage to both the vehicles extensively. Whereas, in Ex.A10 letter dt.22.06.1998, said to have addressed by the complainant to the Manager, National Insurance Company, it has been categorically mentioned that as his lorry bearing no.A.P.28 T 7906 dashed against the R.T.C. bus, some unknown people set fire to the lorry and requested the Manager to examine the vehicle. It is therefore obvious that the manner of the accident, as per the complaint, differs from the manner of the accident mentioned in Ex.A10.
The case of the opposite party is that the complainant has stated in the complaint that the accident has taken place on 10.6.1998 and the complainant has chosen to lodge the claim for the first time with the opposite party, after a lapse of four years, from the date of the alleged accident, without furnishing the required documents and it is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The further case of the opposite party insurance company is that the complainant has not reported the accident immediately to the concerned police, after the alleged accident, but he has chosen to file a private complaint after a lapse of more than four years, from the date of the alleged accident.
In the complaint, the complainant has simply stated that he informed the accident details to the opposite party and requested for arranging survey to assess the loss and to settle the claim, but the insurance company, though registered the claim, no steps were taken to settle the claim and closed the file in an arbitrary manner as no claim and informed the same to the complainant. Nowhere in the complaint, it is mentioned as to the date, on which the complainant informed the accident details, to the opposite party. The complainant has not filed a piece of paper, to show that he informed the accident, to the opposite party prior to the letter dt.30.4.2002, addressed by the complainant to the opp.party, as referred to in Ex.A5 letter.
Further, the complainant admitted the delay in giving claim intimation and that the accident truck was left unattended on the spot, but explained the said delay by contending that soonafter the accident, he felt sick for a long period and there was none to prosecute the claim, in addition to his personal illhealth, his son-in-law and daughter were affected with Aids, as there is none to take care of them, he is forced to take care of them, by visiting various hospitals, including the Ayurvedik Hospital in Kerala and other places. The opposite party denied the above case of the complainant. The complainant has not adduced any evidence, except his oral and interested averments in the complaint and in his evidence affidavit. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the interested averments in the complaint and in the evidence affidavit of the complainant cannot be accepted, in proof of the inordinate delay.
In this appeal, the complainant filed Ex.A9, the original payment receipt, dt.15.6.1998 issued by A.P.S.R.T.C., Yadagirigutta and Ex.A10, the original claim intimation letter dt.22.6.1998, as additional evidence. The opposite party disputed both the documents. Ex.A9 is of not much help to the complainant, in support of his claim and to challenge the stand of the opposite party. Ex.A10 which is claimed as claim intimation letter is bereft of the mandatory acknowledgement, seal or stamp of the receiving officer and signature of the receiving officer. That apart, it does not refer to the accident, with the APSRTC bus or payment of the fine etc. and also that the said vehicle was dealt with in contravention of the policy terms and conditions. The said documents are not referred to or mentioned in the complaint. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove Ex.A10 that he gave claim intimation to the opposite party insurance company on 22.06.1998.
As seen from Ex.A2 FIR , Ex.A3 Panchanama, Ex.A4 referred Charge Sheet, Ex.B5 the copy of the complaint, the complainant filed a private complaint u/s.379,427 and 436 of I.P.C., before the JFCM, Bhongiri, which was referred to the police concerned u/s.256, (3) of CRPC and the investigating officer after investigation referred the case as undetectable. The complainant has not filed any document to show that he has given police report, prior to filing of the private complaint.
In Ex.B5, private complaint the complainant has categorically stated that he came to know about the theft of the total lorry, just five days after the date of the alleged accident. But the complainant has not filed any document to show that he has taken any action immediately regarding the alleged theft of the total lorry.
The complainant has not taken any steps, either to safeguard the vehicle which was lying at the alleged place of accident, for more than four years or has reported the matter to the statutory authorities or the opposite parties in time , as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, in case the vehicle was involved in an accident, the complainant should have reported the matter of such accident, immediately as and when it took place, to the opposite party company along with completed claim form and estimate of repairs to enable the opposite party company, to get the matter investigated and surveyed for assessing the loss. But in this case, the complainant has, for the first time, intimated to the insurance company, vide his letter dt.30.4.2002 after a lapse of about four years, which is not only violation of policy terms and conditions, but also barred by limitation. The existence of the policy does not entitle the complainant to claim any relief under the policy without furnishing the required documents to the opp.party company.
For the facts and circumstances discussed above, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party insurance company. Therefore, the impugned order of the District Forum is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt. 22.7.2013 Additional Evidence filed before this Commission:
Ex.A9 : Original payment receipt dt.15.6.2008 issued by APSRTC Ex.A10 : Lr.dt.22.6.98 from the complainant to the opp.party INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 22.7.2013