CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 192/11
Wednesday the 30th day of April, 2014
Petitioner : Infinity Realcon Ltd
176 AJC Bose Road,
3rd Floor, Kolkata
West Bangal-700 014
Rptd by its Regional Manager,
V.V.Dominic, Vattachalil House,
Vellavoor PO,Changanachery.
(Adv.Sreekanth K.K)
Vs
Opposite parties : Bharti AXA General
Insurance Co.Ltd 6th Floor,
Modayil Center Point,
Warriam Road Junction,
M.G.Road, Kochi-682 016.
(Adv. Agi Joseph)
ORDER
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 22-7-11 is as follows:
The complainant is a private limited company. The complainant’s Tayota Innova Car bearing Engine No.62386 and Chassis No.92N1110 was insured with opposite party. On
14-2-11 the complainant’s Tayota Innova Car met with an accident at Manjoor Village and due to the accident the vehicle was completely damaged and the vehicle was entrusted with authorized dealer Nippon Motors Corporation Pvt.Ltd Cochi. According to the complainant on 22-2-11 authorized dealer inspected the vehicle and they assessed Rs.4,13,955/- as repairing charge and they intimated that they have proceed the claim to the opposite party insurance company. According to the complainant on 20-3-13 he received a repudiation letter dated
16-03-11 from opposite party stating that at the time of accident complainant’s Innova car was not registered with the concerned RTO. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable. According to opposite party the complainant is a company and was taken insurance for using the vehicle for commercial purpose. And hence the complainant is not a consumer. According to opposite party the policy was issued in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and the complainant can use the vehicle only as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and policy conditions. And the complainant’s vehicle was driven without valid registration. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay the insurance claim. Further more the insured had driven the vehicle in violation of Provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. According to opposite party a surveyor was appointed for assessing the damages and he assessed damages for Rs.2,36,531/-. According to opposite party, opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence opposite party pray for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are:
- Complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the affidavits of both sides and Ext.A1 to A8 documents from the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B4 documents from the side of opposite party.
Point No.1
According to opposite party petitioner is a company and taking insurance for using the vehicle for commercial purpose. So the petitioner is not a consumer. Admittedly there is no evidence of any nexus with regard to the commercial activity of the petitioner and the service availed by the petitioner. As such the petitioner is a consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Point No.1 is find accordingly.
Point No.2
Opposite party produced the repudiation letter dated 16-3-11 and the said document is marked as Ext.B3. In Ext.B3 it is stated that the disputed car was not registered with the concerned RTO at the time of accident ie on 14-2-11. Petitioner produced a copy of the registration certificate and the said document which is marked as Ext.A1. From Ext.A1, it can be seen that the registration is valid from 20-5-11 to 19-5-2026. So, from Ext.A1 it can be seen that there is no valid registration prevails at the time of accident. Using a vehicle without registration is against the provisions of the M.V.Act and it is the violation of policy conditions. So in our view, repudiation of the claim of the petitioner is just and proper. So we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point No.2 is find accordingly.
Point No.3
In view of the findings in point No.2 petition is dismissed. Both parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of complainant
Ext.A1-photocopy of certificate of registration
Ext.A2-photocopy of driving licence
Ext.A3-photocopy of FIR
Ext.A4 series- photocopy of bills
Ext.A5-copy of repudiation letter dtd 16-3-11
Ext.A6-photocopy of policy certificate
Ext.A7-photocopy of crime No.96/11 charge sheet
Ext.A8-photocopy of mahazar
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1-Copy of the policy copy with conditions
Ext.B2-Copy of the survey report
Ext.B3-AD card
Ext.B4-photocopy of temporary certificate of registration
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
