Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Noushad Ali, President
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
POTHINA NARASIMHA NAIDU @ NAIDU BABU - Respondent
F.A. No. 282 of 2008
Decided on : 16-05-2016
Mr. N. Mohan Krishna, Advocate, for the Appellants; Served, for the Respondent
The lack of evidence to prove an allegation and the achievement of the objective of intimation to assess the damage influenced the court's decision in determining the liability of the insurance company.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance - Liability of Insurance Company - The court found that there was no evidence to show that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. The delay in intimation of the accident was deemed irrelevant as the damage was admitted. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence to prove the allegation of drunken driving and the achievement of the objective of intimation to assess the damage.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's car, covered by insurance, met with an accident and sustained damage. The insurance company repudiated the claim citing the driver's alleged intoxication and delay in intimation about the accident. The respondent filed a complaint before the Forum, relying on evidence to show the damage to the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to prove the driver was under the influence of alcohol and that the delay in intimation did not cause prejudice as the objective of assessing the damage was achieved.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the insurance company in repudiating the claim based on the alleged intoxication of the driver and the delay in intimation about the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of evidence to prove the allegation of drunken driving and the achievement of the objective of intimation to assess the damage influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order to make the insurance company liable to pay the respondent for the damage sustained by the car.
ORDER
Mr. Justice Noushad Ali, President—The Opposite Parties-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited have filed this appeal against the order dated 7.1.2015 in C.C No. 200/2013 passed by the District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam, wherein they have been made liable to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 3,30,000 with interest at 9% per annum from 29.6.2013 till realization, besides compensation of Rs. 35,000 and costs of Rs. 2,000.
2. The respondent/complainant is the owner of car bearing registration No. AP 31 BT 0009. The vehicle was covered by insurance under the policy marked as Ex.A.6(B.1) issued by Opposite Party No. 1-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. The policy Was valid from 9.10.2012 to 8.10.2013. The vehicle met with an accident on 20.3.2013 and sustained damage. The respondent/complainant got the damage assessed at Rs. 3,30,000 and submitted the claim to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties repudiated the claim under Ex. A.2 letter dated 10.6.2013 on two grounds: (i) at the time of accident the driver was under the influence of alcohol; and (ii) there was abnormal delay in giving intimation about the accident.
3. Since the claim was repudiated, the respondent filed the complaint in question before the Forum. He relied on Ex.A.1 Valuer's Report to show the damage to the vehicle. He filed Ex.A 2-letter dated 10.6.2013 addressed to him by Opposite Party No. 2, Ex.A.3-reply dated 21.6.2013 sent to Opposite Party No. 2. He also filed Ex.A.4-Postal Acknowledgement of Opposite Party No. 2. Ex.A.5 Tax Invoice, Ex.A.6-Insurance Policy, Ex.A.7-Certificate of Registration and Ex.A.8-Bunch of Bills.
4. Before the Forum, while Opposite Part) No. 2 remained ex parte, Opposite Party No. 1 relied on the grounds mentioned in the repudiation setter. Opposite Party No. 1 got marked Ex B1 and B.2 Insurance Policy and the Conditions. Ex.B.3.F.I.R, Ex.B.4-Statement of one B.Naga Raju, Ex.B.5-Statement of one K.Siva Prasad, Ex.B.6-Accident Report and Ex.B.7-Office Memorandum from ACP, Madhurawada Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam City in support of its case.
5. The Forum having gone into the material on record found that there is no evidence to show that the driver was under the influence of alcohol. The Forum also found that the delay in intimation of accident is not relevant as the damage was admitted. Taking into consideration Ex.A.8 Bunch of Bills, the Forum allowed the complaint as mentioned above.
6. Heard Mr. N. Mohan Krishna, Counsel for the appellants. Respondent remained absent and there is no representation on his behalf.
7. The main contention of Mr. N. Mohan Krishna is that the appellants are not liable to pay the amount since the accident was caused when the driver was in a condition of intoxication. He placed reliance on Ex. B.3-F.I.R, Ex.B.4-Statement of one B.Naga Raju. Ex.B.5.Statement of one K.Siva Prasad, Ex.B.6-Accident Report and Ex.B.7-Office Memorandum from ACP, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam City in support of the said contention.
8. This Commission has perused these exhibits. Ex. B.3-F.I.R was registered on the basis of the statement of B. Naga Raju. There is absolutely no allegation that the vehicle was being driven by the driver in an intoxicated condition. Similarly, Ex.B.5 statement of K. Siva Prasad also does not speak about the drunken driving. Ex.B.6 is the accident report of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. His certificate shows that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. He too did not mention about he driver having driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Thus as rightly pointed out by the Forum, there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the allegation that the driver was in drunken condition at the time of accident.
9. It is true that intimation about the accident was given to the Opposite Parties on 23.4.2013. But it must be stated that no prejudice is caused due to the delay inasmuch as the objective of intimation to assess the damage was achieved by getting the surve
