SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 13032

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Aithagoni Srinath – Respondent
SC/36/A/496/2019



BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 496 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.19/2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, NALGONDA Between:

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its authorized signatory, H.No.1-7-96, KMR Plaza, I Floor, Kamalanagar, ECIL post, Hyderabad- 500 062.

…....Appellant/ Opposite Party And:

Aithagoni Srinath, S/o Mallaiah, Aged 36 years, Occupation Milk Business and owner of car bearing No. TS 05 EV 3378, R/o H.No.2-11, Dorepally Village of Kanagal Mandal, Nalgonda District-508255.

……..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. M. Shanker Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Called absent QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

WEDNESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Nalgonda, dated 19.07.2019 in CC 19/2018, where under the opposite party was directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.81,108/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization along with costs of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

2. The brief averments of the complaint in CC 19/2018 are that the complainant purchased the car bearing No.TS 08 UA 0085 from M/s Nine Star Travels, represented by Mr.G.V.Narayana for consideration; that on 27.09.2017 he made an application before RTA, Nalgonda for transfer of car in his name by cancelling the Taxi Number plate and paid necessary amount; that on 27.09.2017 the number plate was changed to TS 05 EV 3378 in the name of complainant; that opposite party issued the insurance certificate by receiving premium of Rs.18,381/- and issued the policy which is valid upto 17.06.2018; that on 27.09.2017 at 8:30 P.M. the car met with an accident and a case was registered by Nalgonda I Town Police and left side front portion of the car was damaged; that the complainant immediately informed about the accident to the opposite party over phone but they have not responded; that the vehicle was shifted to Sriram Auto Service Station, who also contacted the opposite party without any response; that the complainant paid Rs.81,108/- towards repair charges on 23.10.2017; that several times opposite party was informed about the accident but no steps were taken; that a legal notice was issued on 06.07.2018 to the opposite party and they have issued repudiation letter dated 20.04.2018; hence, the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the opposite party does not know about purchase of the vehicle by complainant from M/s Nine Star Travels and obtaining new number plate by cancelling the taxi plate; that no claim was received from the complainant till the receipt of legal notice dated 06.04.2018; that the opposite party was kept in dark till then and any averments contrary to the same as made in the complaint are false to the core; that the complainant is not the insured of the vehicle and he never paid required fee to validate the policy in his name after the vehicle was transferred in his name;

that the complainant has no insurable interest; that the opposite party has no knowledge about the complainant getting the repairs done by paying Rs.81,108/-. With this requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex. A1 to A11. One Sri G.Ramesh Babu, Divisional Manager of opposite party filed evidence affidavit and got marked the documents as Ex.B1.

5. The Commission below, settled the following points for discussion viz..:

Whether there is any deficiency of the service on the part of Opposite Party?

Whether the compl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top