Kerala

Idukki

CC/94/2020

Lins Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

A E electrical section painavu - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

                                                                                    Forwarded by Order 

 

DATE OF FILING :14/07/2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of August  2022

Present :

                     SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                     PRESIDENT

                     SMT.ASAMOL P.                                 MEMBER                      

                     SRI.AMPADY K.S.                               MEMBER        

           

CC NO.94/2020

 

Between

Complainant                        :  Linslal, S/o Augusthy,

                                                Mangalath House, Thadiyampadu P.O.,

                                                Idukki, Pin – 685 602.

                                                (By Adv.Shiji Joseph)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                        And

Opposite Party                    : 1 . The Assistant Engineer,

                                                    KSEB, Electrical Section, Painvu P.O.

                                                   (By Adv.Lissy M.M.)

                                              2 .  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                                    ICICI Lombard House, 414,

                                                    Veer Savarkar Marg, near Siddhivinayak Temple,

                                                    Prabhadevi, Mumbai, Represented by its

                                                    Chairman and Managing Director.

                                               3 . Maruthi Insurance Broking Pvt.Ltd., 1,

                                                    Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,

                                                    New Delhi – 110 070,

                                                    Represented by its Managing Director.

                                               4 . Maruthi Insurance Broking Pvt Ltd.,

                                                    3^rd Floor, Kannamkeri Estate, Shanmugham Road,

                                                    Cochin 682 031, Represented by its Manager.

                                                    (For 3^rd and 4^th by Adv.Anto Thomas)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                       (Cont.........2)

-2-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

          Complainant filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986.  Complainant's case is briefly discussed hereunder.

 

1 . Complainant is the registered owner of the Maruthi Ertiga Vehicle having registration No.KL -06-J-3127.  First opposite party is the Assistant Engineer, KSEB Painavu, who is only a formal party to the complaint and no relief is claimed against the first opposite party.  Other opposite parties are insurance company and its corporate agents.

 

2 . Complainant has insured his vehicle with second and third opposite parties.  The period of insurance was from 22/12/2018 to 21/12/2019.  On 30/10/2019, complainant parked the vehicle near Govt. L.P.School, Vazhathoppe and the vehicle moved by itself losing its hand brake control and dashed against the electronic post owned by first opposite party and the electric post was broken.  Despite insurance, first opposite party insisted for the payment and hence complainant was forced  to remit Rs.14,263/- to them.  First opposite party threatened the complainant that unless the amount is paid, they would not permit the complainant to taken back the vehicle.  After remitting Rs.14,263/-, first opposite party allowed receiving the vehicle from police station.  Thereafter, complainant claimed the amount from second and third opposite parties.  But, these opposite parties refused to pay the amount as complainant has paid the money already.

 

3 . Complainant had taken the insurance for getting protection for third party property damages and the opposite parties 2 to 4 are liable to pay the amount paid as the property damages of the first opposite party.  The refusal to pay the claim by the opposite parties 2 to 4 are deficiency in service and this caused considerable pain and mental agony to complainant.  Hence, complainant is entitled to get Rs.14,263/- paid to first opposite party along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation and cost also.  Complainant has prayed the following reliefs.

 

                                                                                                                       (Cont.........3)

-3-

(a) Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.14,263/- the amount paid for third party property damages to first opposite party by complainant.

 

(b) Also, opposite parties 2 to 4 may be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of complaint to complainant.

 

          Notice served from the Commission to opposite parties.  Opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 entered  appearance.  Opposite party 2 was absent and hence was set exparte.  3^rd and 4^th opposite parties have filed detailed written version.    No version filed by 1^st opposite party.

 

           The contentions of opposite parties 3 and 4 are briefly discussed hereunder:-

 

          According to these opposite parties, they are only insurance broking entity licensed with Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).  The role of these opposite parties, being a facilitator, is to apprise the customers about the features and benefits of motor insurance products offered by various insurance companies including second opposite party.  After this facilitation, customers buy insurance as per their own will and volition and pays insurance premium which goes to the concerned insurance company only.  In lien of the premium received, Insurance company insures the vehicle and issues insurance policy to the customers subject to  their own independent terms and conditions/IRDAI guidelines.  Acceptance or repudiation of claims is the role prerogative of the concerned insurance company only.  The vehicle of the complainant has been insured with second opposite party.  Hence, allegation of the complainant that his vehicle was insured with these opposite parties are incorrect and misleading.  These opposite parties are not an insurance company to settle the alleged claim of the complainant.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties.  Hence this complaint may be dismissed with cost of these opposite parties.

 

          At the time when case was posted for evidence, counsel of complainant had submitted that there is  no oral evidence for complainant and 4 documents were produced.  These documents were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P4.  Opposite parties and their counsel were not present on the date when case was posted for evidence

 

                                                                                                                       (Cont.........4)

-4-

and hearing.  Argument notes were not filed by both sides.  Counsel for complainant has adduced  oral arguments.

          Now the points which arise for consideration are

 

(a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

 

(b) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

 

          Points are considered together

 

          We have perused the complaint and documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4.  It can be seen as per Ext.P2 that accident occurred at Vazhathope near Govt.LP School on 30/10/2019.  It is reported in Ext.P2 document that the bumber, bonnet and grill of the car was strained and the electric post was found broken.

 

          As per Ext.P1 ie, Certificate cum Policy Schedule, the period of insurance is 22/12/2018 to 21/12/2019.  The accident occurred within the validity period of insurance policy.  It is seen as per this P1 document that the policy issuing office is Maruthi Insurance broking Pvt.Ltd., Third floor, Kannamkari Estate, Shanmugham Road, Cochin, Kerala.  We have also found that this is a third party liability insurance policy.   Hence, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to get insurance amount for third party damages.  Complainant has already submitted that first opposite party is a formal party and no relief needed against them.  As per Ext.P3 and P4, complainant has remitted Rs.14,263/- to first opposite party for the damages happened to the electronic post which is owned by them.  According to complainant, this amount has to be remitted by opposite parties 2 to 4.  But, complainant was forced to remit the amount to first opposite party.  Because first opposite party has not allowed the complainant to receive the vehicle from police station, on the day itself, complainant has remitted Rs,14,263/- to first opposite party for their damages.  No evidence adduced by opposite parties.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 have filed detailed written version.  No documents produced by them.  Second opposite party was exparte.   In the written version of opposite parties 3 and 4 , it is submitted that they are only the insurance broking entity and they have no liability to settled the insurance amount for policy holders.  But, no evidence was tendered by them to prove their contentions.  Therefore we

 

                                                                                                                       (Cont.........5)

-5-

find that all opposite parties are liable to settled the claim of complainant.  Also, complainant is entitled for  compensation.  Point No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

          In the result, complaint is allowed.  Hence opposite party No.2 to 4 are directed to pay Rs.14,263/- the amount paid for third party property damaged to first opposite party by the complainant and also to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost of complaint to complainant within 30 days from the date of copy of receipt of the order, failing which the amounts except litigation costs shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of petition, till its realisation.

 

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the 30^th day of  August 2022.

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                             SMT.ASAMOL P.,  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                  SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                            SRI.AMPADY K.S.,   MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                      (Cont.........6)

-6-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Certificate cum Policy Schedule

Ext.P2 - General Diary Abstract

Ext.P3 -  Complainant has remitted Rs.14,263/- to first opposite party.

Ext.P4 – KSEB Bill

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

 

 

 

                                                                               ASSISTANT REGISTRAR