Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M. Shreesha, Presiding Member and T. Ashok Kumar, Member
S. SHABBEER - Appellant
Versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
FA No. 81 of 2013
Decided on : 18-06-2013
Insurance - Car Insurance - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 146, Section 147] - The court discussed the validity of the insurance policy, the occurrence of the accident, and the repairs incurred by the complainant. It highlighted the requirement for the policy to be in force, the establishment of the accident, and the submission of the driving license of the concerned driver. The court found the repudiation by the insurance company unjustified due to the absence of specific grounds and non-settlement of the claim, leading to a deficiency in service.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant insured his car and incurred damages in an accident. The insurance company denied the claim, leading to the complaint seeking directions for payment of repair costs and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the insurance company's repudiation unjustified and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the District Forum. The complaint was allowed in part, directing the insurance company to pay the repair costs with interest and costs.
Issues: Validity of insurance policy, occurrence of the accident, repairs incurred, and justification of the insurance company's repudiation.
Ratio Decidendi: The policy must be in force, the accident must be established, and the driving license of the concerned driver must be submitted. Non-settlement of claim by the insurance company amounts to deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum. The complaint was allowed in part, directing the insurance company to pay the repair costs with interest and costs.
ORDER
Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member (Oral)- Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 99/2011 on the file of Dist. Forum, Ananthapur, the complainant preferred this appeal.
2. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant insured his Indica Car covering the period from 23.12.2009 to 22.12.2010 towards own damage and towards third party liability from the opposite party by paying a premium of Rs. 5,428.62 and Rs. 10,240 respectively. While so, on 28.12.2009 at about 5.30 a.m. one T. Gangadri driving the vehicle, the left side tyre of the vehicle was punctured and the driver lost control and the car dashed against a road side boulder and the following damages took place.
Banat front glass, front head light doom, A/c. condenser, Radiator, A/c. fan and radiation fan press, pump head dynamiter battery, air filter, front parcel, timing covering, balance rod, oil filter body, royalar set, front tyre disk, front bumper, diesel filter body and A/c. pipes.
The accident was brought to the notice of the opposite party and a Surveyor was deputed but he did not submit his report. The complainant spent an amount of Rs. 1,05,360 towards car repairs at an authorised service station which also issued bills to that effect. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 16.3.2011 requesting the opposite party to pay the repairs cost of the car but did not receive any response. Hence this complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay repair cost of Rs. 1,05,360 together with compensation and costs.
3. The opposite party filed counter denying all the allegations and the very issuance of policy, accident and the repairs incurred by the complainant. They even contended that the complainant should prove that the policy was valid as on the date of alleged accident.
4. The Dist. Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs. A1 to A9 and the pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant filed written arguments.
7. It is the appellant's/complainant's case that he has taken the insurance policy from the opposite party evidenced under Ex. A1 for the period from 23.12.2009 to 22.12.2010. It is also his case that on 28.12.2009 one T. Gangadri was driving the vehicle and it met with an accident. Ex. A5 is the police certificate dated 31.12.2009 evidencing the same. Ex. A6 is the challan and receipt for compounding offence dated 31.12.2009 for Rs. 300. It is the appellant/complainant's case that he got his vehicle repaired with M/s. Baba Motors and filed Ex. A8 original bills ten in number amounting to Rs. 1,05,360. As per the certificate issued by the police one Sri T. Venkata Ramana is driving the vehicle and at the end of the certificate the police stated that one B. Kristappa, driver of the Indica Car was having valid driving licence. It is the OP's case that two different names are mentioned by the police where T. Venkata Ramana, driver of Indica Car was penalized for a sum of Rs. 300. Ex. A9 is the photostat copy of the driving licence of Sri T. Venkata Ramana who is none other than the son of T. Gangadhri. The complainant submits that for the last several years Sri T. Venkata Ramana is the driver of the vehicle and it is only by mistake that the Counsel had written the driver's name as T. Gangadri instead of T. Venkata Ramana and submits that T. Gangadri is the father of T. Venkata Ramana. It is pertinent to note that Ex. A5 certificate states that Sri T. Venkata Ramana was the driver of the said car and that he was having valid driving licence which is evidenced under Ex. A9. The opposite party has not raised this issue at all in their counter or in their pleadings. Ex. A6 is the Traffic Police Challan. It is also in the name of Sri T. Venkata Ramana, S/o Gangadri and he was penalized for Rs. 300. In the light of Ex. A5 and A6 and also the driving licence Exs. A9, we are of the considered view that the d
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
