CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.178/07
Monday the 12th day of December, 2011
Petitioner : George T.Mathew,
Thoomkuzhiyil House,
Chenapady PO
Kottayam
(Adv. Siby Pampady)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd
P.B.No.124,Cheeramvelil Bldg,
KK Road, Kanjirappally.
2) The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd
Divisional Office, Kottayam.
(Adv. Sajan.AVarghese&Adv.C.J.Jomi)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
This is a case which is remanded by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redrssal Commission, as per its order dtd 24/01/11, in appeal No.609/2010.
Petition is with regard to own damage claim of a Qualis Van bearing registration No.KL5-K 4554. The claim prepared by the petitioner to the opposite party was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle registered as a private vehicle was used for taxi purpose. According to the petitioner he never used the vehicle as a taxi and the repudiation of claim for Rs.2,70,862/- amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the petition.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. According to opposite party on enquiry and investigation it is understood that the insured vehicle, at the time of accident, was insured as a private car and was already run 26921 K.M, as on the date of accident that is after 50 months since registration. Further more on enquiry by the investigator it is learned that the person traveling their in, who sustained injury in the accident, was stranger. So repudiation of the claim is legal and proper.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs
Evidence in the case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext.A1 to A9 document on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
Opposite party admitted the policy. According to the opposite party at the time of accident insured vehicle was hired by one Elsiamma Scaria . Further more the vehicle was actually insured as a private vehicle had already run 126921 K.M. in total as on the date of accident. During investigation one of the injured person Elsiamma Scaria was in the vehicle and given statement that they had hired vehicle for going to church. In our view opposite party has not produced any evidence, other than the report filed by the investigator appointed by them, to prove their contentions. Running a vehicle for a long distance at the time of accident cannot be an indicative to know that it was used as a taxi for hire.
The Hon’ble State Commission as per its order remanded the case to this Fora with a direction to permit both parties to adduce further evidence. After remand petitioner produced a copy of order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP(MV)Nos.767,768,777,844,845,855&857/2005 said document is marked as Ext.A9. In Ext.A9 judgment the tribunal find that the police has recorded the FIS on 26//4/05. In FIS and all other police records the petitioner has not given statement supporting the contentions of the insurance company. Further more an affidavit is filed by one Scaria Thomas is much after the date of accident and is not a reliable one. The Tribunal observed that there is no document produced by the insurance company to prove that vehicle has been plied as a taxi and there is fundamental breach of conditions of the policy. So we are also of the same view that repudiation of the claim by the opposite party company is not legal and proper.
For fixing the quantum of damages we rely on the surveyor report. Report submitted by the Surveyor is produced before the Forum and is marked as Ext.B1. According to the investigator / surveyor total loss less salvage value will come to Rs. 1,68,000/-. In our view act of the opposite party in repudiating the claim on flimsy ground is a clear deficiency in service. As per Regulation 9(5) and (6) of IRDA (protection of policy holders interest) Regulation 2002. On receipt of survey report insurer shall within a period of 30 days offer a settlement of claim to the insured or reject claim under the policy. Otherwise the insurer shall liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2% above bank rate prevalent at the beginning of financial year in which claim is reviewed by it. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the finding in point No.1 petition is allowed. Opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- along 10% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.3000/- as cost of the proceedings. Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered.
Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of December, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of premium receipt
Ext.A2-copy of certificate of registration
Ext.A3-letter dtd 24/8/06 issued by the petitioner to the OP
Ext.A4-letter dtd 30/8/06 issued the petitioner to the OP
Ext.A5-reply from the opposite party dt 11/9/06
Ext.A6-Repudiation letter dtd 23-10-06
Ext.A7-Copy of lawyers notice
Ext.A8-Bill towards cost of spare parts and repaid charges
Ext.A9-Copy of the order in OP(MV)Nos.767,768,777,844,855 and 857/2005 dtd
22/7/09
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-survey report of Ithapiri
