IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance company cannot keep claim pending for long period.

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member—Challenge in this revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short “the Act”) is to the order dated 27.12.2013 in First Appeal No.543 of 2012 on the file of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short “the State Commission”). By the impugned order, the State Commission had modified the order of the District Forum directing the fourth Opposite Party, M/s. M.G. Brothers, Nellore to pay an amount of Rs. 2,32,759/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Case against OP nos. 1,2,3 and 5 was dismissed without costs.

2. Before the District Forum, in the Original Complaint, the Opposite Parties are arrayed as under:

1. M.G. Brothers Automobiles (P) Ltd., Tirupati, Chittoor District.

2. TATA Finance Limited, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

3. M.G. Brothers Ltd., Nellore Town and District

4. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company, At Tirupati, Chittoor District

5. TATA Motors Passenger Car Business Unit, Pune-410501, Maharashtra.

3. The brief facts as set out in the Original Complaint are that the Complainant’s son had purchased a TATA Indigo XL Car from the first Opposite Party, MG Brothers Automobiles (P) Ltd., Tirupati, who is under the control and management of the third Opposite Party, i.e., MG Brothers, Nellore. The car was financed from the second Opposite Party, Tata Finance Company, which is under the control and management of the Fifth Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that her second son paid the monthly instalments regularly till his death on 19.5.2008. The car met with an accident on 1.5.2008 and was extensively damaged and was towed to the first Opposite Party for repairs on 3.5.2008. The Complainant’s husband had written a letter to the second Opposite Party Finance Company informing about the death of his son and also paid a sum of Rs. 43,500/- towards E.M.I. instalment with a request not to present the post-dated cheques for encashment. The Complainant averred that the premium to the Insurance Company was fully paid and hence it is bound to pay for the repairs caused on account of the accident. Despite repeated requests to the dealers, the car was not delivered. A legal notice dated 22.5.2009 was issued after waiting for 1½ years The Complainant’s husband was informed that some negotiations were going on between the first Opposite Party and the Second and Fourth Opposite Parties and that they would inform them about the outcome. The Complainant waited for five more months and then had written a letter to the first and fourth Opposite Parties on 1.10.2009 requesting them to settle the claim. Despite promising that the vehicle would be made roadworthy within 3 months from the date of handing over the car, the first Opposite Party did not adhere to the given time schedule. The Complainant suffered mental agony and pecuniary loss on account of delay of nearly 1½ years in repairing the damaged car. Hence, the Complaint seeking direction to Opposite Parties 1 to 5 jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards damages for causing pecuniary loss and harassment and to deliver the car in a road-worthy condition together with costs and any further reliefs.

4. The first Opposite Party filed written version denying all the allegations and also the receipt of any letters written by the Complainant or her husband to them and averred that after the death of the Complainant’s son, none had come forward with documentary evidence to take back the repaired car. It is pleaded that a sum of Rs. 4,32,036.21/- has been spent for effecting repairs but the Insurance Company has not sent the amount and the Complainant is also liable to pay the parking rent for the said car. It is stated that they had sent letters to the Complainant’s husband on 17.2.2010, 11.3.2010, 23.3.2010, 5.4.2010, 6.4.2010 and 3.6.2010 by way of regi