BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.67 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.279 OF 2016, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD Between:

1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Door No.12-13-1274, III Floor, Maspack House, Tarnaka, Secunderabad – 500017.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rep. by Regional Head, Rajasthan – 302022, India.

……Appellant/Opp.Parties 1 & 2 And Sri Sampath Reddy Tanam, S/o.Sri T.Salas Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.2-34/4, Market Road, Suraram, Bhadurpally, Quthbullapur, R.R.District.

……Respondent /Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opp.Parties 1&2: M/s. N.Mohan Krishna Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: M/s. RSV Law Firm QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI ……PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN .…MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ******

Order: (Per Smt.Dr.G.Radha Rani, Hon’ble President)

1. This appeal is filed by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 aggrieved by the orders passed in CC.No.279/2016 dated 24.06.2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad in allowing the complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties to settle the claim within one month from the date of receipt of the documents from the Complainant and to pay the settled claim with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident to the date of payment, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the District Commission, as Complainant and Opposite Parties 1 and 2.

3. (a) The case of the Complainant was that, he was the registered owner of the DCM vehicle bearing registration No.AP 28 TD 0492 and the said vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide policy No.10004/31/12/048030 for the period from 16.03.2012 to 15.03.2013. On 16.07.2012 his van met with an accident. It hit a school van at Kodikonda Checkpost, Morampally Cross. In the said accident, two children died and some sustained injuries. Due to the said incident, villagers of Morampally and surrounding villagers in a fit of rage set fire to the Complainant’s vehicle bearing No.AP 28 TD 0492 and to the said school van. In the said fire incident, the Complainant’s vehicle was totally damaged. On the complaint given by the V.R.O. Koduru, the Police Chilamathur of Anantapur District registered a case vide Crime No.53/2012 dated 16.07.2012 for the offences under Section-143, 435 R/w.149 IPC.

(b) The Complainant submitted that as on the date of the incident, the policy was in force. As such he approached Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and requested for clearing the insurance claim amount to him, but they had postponed the same on one pretext or other. The Complainant on several occasions requested Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to pay policy claim amount, but they failed to do so. As such, he got issued legal notice on 18.04.2016 to Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Opposite Party No.1 received the said notice but failed to respond to the same. As such, lodged the Consumer Complaint claiming an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

4. (a) The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 filed their written version contending that there was no deficiency of service and there were no valid or justifiable grounds or any cause of action to file the complaint against them and that the complaint was liable to be dismissed. They admitted issuance of the policy to the DCM vehicle bearing registration No.AP 28 TD 0492 vide policy No. 10004/31/12/048030 for the period from 16.03.2012 to 15.03.2013 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. They contended that as per the copy of the FIR No.53/2012 dated 16.07.2012, the vehicle number was shown as AP 28 TD 0496. The policy issued by the Opposite Party was not covered for the said vehicle. W