KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.336/09 JUDGMENT DATED 20.4.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER M/S.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thodupuzha reptd by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-II, -- APPELLANT Thiruvananthapuram (By Adv.Varkala B.Ravikumar) Vs. Benny Varghese, Thottapillil House, -- RESPONDENT Moolamattam P.O. ArakkulamVillage, Idukki District. (By Adv.C.P.Regi) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 31st January 2009 of the CDRF, Idukki in CC No.127/08. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in dishonoring the Insurance claim with respect to the insured vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-06-B 1495. The opposite party/Insurance Company entered appearance and contended that there was violation of the policy conditions as the complainant had only possessed learners driving license to drive the car and that the complainant failed to follow the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Thus, the opposite party/Insurance Company justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim. 2. Before the forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite party DWs 1 and 2 were examined and R1 to R3 documents were produced. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.80,542/- to the complainant as the insurance claim amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the complaint and cost of Rs.2000/-. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party/Insurance Company. 3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on R1 copy of the first information statement given to the Police with respect to the accident. It is further submitted that R1 first information statement was given by the wife of the respondent/complainant and argued for the position that there was violation of the policy condition regarding possession of driving licence. It is submitted that the evidence on record would show that the respondent/complainant was not having a valid driving license and he was holding only a learners licence. But, he failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the appellant/opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Limited can be justified in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the respondent/complainant? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in CC.127/08? 5. POINTS 1 AND 2:- There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant was the owner of the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KL-06-B 1495 and the same was insured with the appellant/opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The insured vehicle met with an accident on the night of 6.7.06. Admittedly, the vehicle was having valid insurance coverage at the time of the accident. The complainant being the insured of the vehicle preferred a claim for the damage caused to the insured vehicle. But, the claim was repudiated by the opposite party/Insurance Company on the ground that the complainant was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 6. Admittedly, the complainant was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. It is also admitted that the complainant was holding a learners licence to drive the said vehicle. The definite case of the appellant/opposite party Insurance Company is that the complainant being the driver of the insured vehicle failed to follow the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It was contended that the complainant being the holder of a learners licence was not accompanied by a person having a valid driving licence to control the vehicle and that the insured vehicle was not having the “L” board displayed on the vehicle. Thus, according to the appellant/opposite party Insurance Company there was violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The appellant much relied on R1, F.I statement given to the police by the wife of the complainant. But, the complainant as PW1 has denied the aforesaid statement said to have been given by his wife. According to PW1, no such statement by his wife. The recital in F.I statement has not been proved by the opposite party/Insurance Company. The person who recorded the R1, F.I statement has not been examined. Thus, there is no acceptable evidence to show that the complainant was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident without following the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. On the other hand, PW1 has categorically deposed that he was accompanied by a person having a valid driving licence and that person was sitting on the side of the complainant and he was in a position to control the vehicle. The aforesaid case of PW1 has not been controverted by any other evidence. PW1 has also deposed that the vehicle was having the ‘L’ Board displayed on the front and real side of the vehicle. The DW2, the surveyor who has reported about the violation of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 had no occasion to visit the accident spot. The evidence of DW2 regarding the absence of ‘L’ Board cannot be believed or accepted. The facts and circumstance of the case would show that the complainant was driving the vehicle by following the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. So, the opposite party/Insurance Company cannot be justified in repudiating the Insurance claim. The finding of the forum below regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in their violation to honour the insurance claim is to be upheld. 7. Ext.R3, survey report would show that the vehicle suffered extensive damage and a sum of Rs.80,542/- was required to effect the necessary repairs to the insured vehicle. The opposite party has no case that the vehicle was not repaired by the complainant. The opposite party/Insurance Company has not directed the complainant/insured to produce the repaired vehicle for verification. So, the Forum below can be justified in awarding a sum of Rs.80,542/- to the complainant by way of the insurance amount. It is also to be noted that R3 survey report would justify the said order passed by the Forum below. The Forum below is also justified in awarding cost of Rs.2000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the complaint in CC.127/08. The case of the complainant/opposite party that the salvages were not produced for inspection by the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that the opposite party/Insurance Company requested the complainant insured to produce the salvages. It is further to be noted that the salvage value of Rs.5000/- was deducted by the approved surveyor. The surveyor had also deducted the policy excess of Rs.500/-. Thus, the net loss assessed by the surveyor would come to Rs.80,542/-. In all respects, the Forum below is perfectly justified in awarding compensation of Rs.80,542/- to the complainant. It is also to be noted that the surveyor has not allowed the entire cost of this spare parts and the labour charges claimed by the complainant. The surveyor made considerable deductions from the cost of spare parts and labour charges claimed by the insured. So, we do not find any sustainable reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. So, the present appeal disserves dismissal. Hence we do so. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the forum below is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN-- MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER | 
