B. SHAI REDDY Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the District Forum-II Hyderabad in C.D.No.839 of 2007 whereby the complainant filed F.A.No.990 of 2008 and the opposite party no.1 filed F.A.No.736 of 2009 assailing the impugned order.

(2.) F.A.No.736 of 2009 is taken as the leading case wherein the facts as represented by the parties are that the complainant purchased Tata Indigo LS car manufactured by opposite party no.2 from the opposite party no.4 on 17.5.2006 for a sum of Rs.4,77,697/- and the same was registered vide registration No.AP 9BE 1678. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1 vide policy no.3001/1478914/00/000 dated 17.5.2006. On 16.12.2006 when the complainant along with his brother-in-law were proceeding in the vehicle suddenly flame and smoke came out from the A/c windows of the car. They jumped out of the car with burn injuries and within minutes the entire car was burnt into ashes. Immediately with the help of the complainants relative Mr.Narsimha Reddy, who is a resident of Chinna Golconda they were taken to a private hospital at Shamshabad for first aid and from there they were shifted to Sridhar Hospital Santoshnagar, Hyderabad. The police Shamshabad registered a case vide FIR no.472/2006 and the said fact was also informed to the opposite party no.1 and they registered a claim No.00243814 dated 17.12.2006. The complainant also submitted all the relevant documents such as original medical bills, FIR and damage estimation report to the opposite party no.1 for settlement of the claim. As the claim was not settled the complainant got issued legal notice dated 25.1.2007 to all the opposite parties for which the opposite parties no.2 and 3 sent reply dated 9.2.2007 and 13.2.2007 respectively. When there was no response from the opposite parties, the complainant again got issued legal notice dated 14.5.2007 to the opposite partyno.1. Hence the complainant filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,50,000/- with interest and costs.

(3.) The opposite party no.1 resisted the case contending that it requested the complainant vide its letters dated 9.1.2007 and 30.1.2007 to prove the technical report from TATA Motors i.e., opposite party no.2 who are the manufactures of the insured vehicle. But the complainant has not submitted the technical report for processing his claim. Instead, he sent legal notice dated 25.1.2007 that on account of serious defect in the manufacture of the car the accident occurred. As per the terms and conditions of the policy there is no coverage for damage caused to the vehicle on account of manufacturing defect.