D.O.F: 17/05/2016
D.O.O: 29/11/2018
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.154/16
Dated this, the 29th day of November 2018
PRESENT:
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
Thomas K.P.
S/o Paulose, Kochuparambil House
Balal Village, Vellarikundu P.O. Parappa : Complainant
(Adv: A.K.V. Balakrishnan)
And
1. Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd,
107, Crystal Arc,1st Floor,
Balmatta Road, Mangalore-575001 : Opposite Parties
2. Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Limited,
Press Club Junction, Chandragiri Road,
Kasaragod – 671121.
( Adv: Annamma John. V for OP1 & 2)
ORDER
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of 4,00,000/-as insurance claim along with 50,000/- as compensation, cost to the complainant .
The case of the complainant in brief:-
The complainants’ vehicle bearing Reg.NO KL.60.B -3501 which was duly insured with the opposite party met with an accident on 14/06/2014 and got serious damages to the vehicle. The matter was informed to the opposite party and the vehicle was kept for repair at PSN Automotive Marketing PVT LTD Kanhangad. The surveyor appointed by the opposite party inspected the vehicle and noted the damages and repair work carried out. But the claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on 01/09/2014 without stating any reason.
The opposite party entered appearance before the Fora and submitted their written version stating that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident have no valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. So there is violation of the policy condition and stipulation of M.V Act. The opposite party has no liability to indemnify the complainant. So the repudiation of the claim is justified as per the law. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.
On the basis of the rival contention of the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complaint is entitled for the any reliefs?
- Reliefs and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 to Pw3 and Exts A1 to A9 on his part. There was no oral evidence for the opposite parties but B1 to B3 documents were marked.
ISSUE NO: 1
The complainant adduced evidence by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by the opposite party and he relied on Ext A1 to A9 documents also to substantiate to his case. According to him the driver of the vehicle is having valid driving license. Hence repudiation of the claim by the opposite party on that ground is unjustifiable one. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money. According to the complainant he is entitled for Rs.4, 00,000/- as insurance claim along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation Pw2 and Pw3 also deposed before the Fora in favour of the complainant.
The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that since driver is not having valid driving licence at the time of accident there is violation of policy condition as well as the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. Hence the claim of the complaint was rightly repudiated. He relied on Exts B1 to B3 documents and the citation of the apex court AIR 2008 Supreme Court 614 also. Without prejudices to the above the counsel for the opposite party stated that the claim raised by the complainant is highly excessive and exorbitant. Ext B3 is the report submitted by the IRDA licensed surveyor which is reliable for asserting actual loss.
On perusal of the pleadings documents and evaluation of the evidence tendered before the Fora , there is no dispute regarding insurance coverage of the vehicle during the period of accident. The main contention of the opposite party was that driver had no valid driving license at the time of accident. Ext A7 extract of driving license, shows the driver is authorised to drive transport vehicle with badge no 4200/HPV till 21/07/2017 as per description in a Ext A7 the validity to drive non transport vehicle is up to 21/07/2017 and that of transport vehicle is up to 13/08/2017 . Apart to that he is holding above mentioned badge also. On perusal of Ext A3 RC book the class of vehicle is MGV-tipper. So the vehicle is medium goods vehicle only. As per Ext B3 survey report the surveyor had verified the driver’s licence drive and no objection was noted. The column reserved in the report for recording commence of the surveyor also kept empty. The citation AIR 2008 SC 614 is not relevant and applicable in this case. From the foregoing discussions and findings we are of the considered view that Ext A7 is a valid driving license to drive the vehicle involved in this case. So the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is not just and proper which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence issue no1 found against the opposite party and answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO: 2&3
As discussed above the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is not justifiable one. So the complainant is entitled for insurance claim benefit as per the policy condition. Ext B3 survey report and Ext A8 invoice are not tallying. It is the duty of the complainant to get sanction of additional estimate if any from the surveyor / opposite party. The complainant examined Pw2 and Pw3 witnesses to establish the veracity of Ext A8 and A9 bills. If as per Ext A9 and deposition of Pw3 the full body was changed for Rs.1, 25,000/- what is the necessity of replace the cabin of the vehicle by spending Rs.92,145 /- as per the ext a8 . According to our view the full body included the cabin also. So the amount of Rs.92, 145 /- as per the a8 is not allowable. As per the Ext B3 is survey report no mechanical work were noticed. There is no possibility for repair work of clutch assembly due to the accident. Hence an amount of Rs. 1,152 /- also deducted from Ext A8. Though the surveyor as per Ext B3 not estimated for replacement of cabin or full body , from the recital of Ext B3 it is evident that Rs.8000+5000 was allowed for the said purpose. Hence we hold that as per Ext A9 the full body replacement was necessitated; Pw3 also supports the same. From the foregoing discussion findings we hold that as per Ext A8 the complainant is entitled Rs.1, 87,700/- and Rs. 12,500/- as per Ext A9. Thus the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 92,700/- only to the complainant as insurance claim. He is entitled for interest upon the said sum the opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation Rs.3000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue no 2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties s to pay a sum of Rs.2, 92,700/- as insurance claim with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint to the complainant along with Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and as Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as litigation cost within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision os of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits:
A1- Copy of F.I.R Dated: 15-06-2014.
A2- Copy of the charge sheet.
A3- Copy of the R.C of vehicle KL No-60.B.3501
A4- Copy of the Insurance Policy of vehicle.
A5- Copy of the letter issued by opposite party.
A6- Copy of the Tax Endorsement of the vehicle.
A7- Copy of Driving License Extract of driver Saji Mon. M.M.
A8 Series- (6 in No.)- Cash Bill issued by P.S.N. Auto Motive Marketing Pvt.Ltd.
A9- Cash Bill issued by Tazz Tech for new body labour charge bill.
B1- Copy of Policy Certificate.
B2- Extract of Driving License of the driver Saji Mon. M.M.
B3- Preliminary Survey Report
Witness Examined:
PW1- Thomas .K.P
PW2- Ganesan. K
PW3- Babu.V.M.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
