D.O.F:11/11/2020
D.O.O:10/10/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.152/2020
Dated this, the 10th day of October 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Govindhan.V Aged 55 years
S/o Kunhambu
Kallyan Road, Bella. P.O
Kasaragod Dist – 671531 : Complainant
And
Senior Branch Manager
The New India Assurance Company Ltd,
Branch Office, 1st Floor, Shakthi Arcade
Opposite. Classic Theatre : Opposite Party
Pookoth Nada, Thaliparamba- 670141
(Adv: A.C Ashok Kumar)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is as follows
The complainant is the registered owner of KL- 58 E 7866 MGV Tipper lorry insured with Opposite Party for the period from 05/02/2020 to 04/10/2020 vehicle is driven by Sumesh. Insurance is obtained by physically producing the vehicle. On 05/02/2020 while the vehicle is in moving from Velloda to Mavungal at about 5.15 Pm while vehicle reached the place Vazhakode vehicle turtle. Driver did not suffer injury but vehicle suffered extensive damage. Incident was informed to Surveyor. Surveyor come and inspected the vehicle repair is conducted and spent Rs. 3,58,883/- complainant applied for claim but Opposite Party repudiated the claim. The complainant sought relief of refund of repair charge, compensation and cost of litigation.
2. The Opposite Party appeared and filed written version, Opposite Party admitted insurance coverage from 3.58 Pm on 05/02/2020. Investigation reveals that incident is on 04/02/2020. Suppressed the truth and suggested falsehood that, accident happened on 04/02/2020 and claim repudiated. Repudiation is justified and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined and one witness also examined Ext A1 to A4 and X1 documents marked from there side. Ext A1 is power of attorney, Ext A2 to A4 repudiation letter X1 is repair charges.
The Opposite Party’s document Ext B1 to B4 marked. Ext B1 is policy, Ext B2 is repudiation letter, Ext B3 is summary report, Ext B4 is out patient register on 04/02/2020.
Following points arise for consideration:
- Whether vehicle is covered by valid insurance on the date of accident?
- Whether repudiation of claim is justifiable as per law? And evidence?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service? if so for what reliefs?
In the present case complainant’s case is that vehicle met with an accident on 05/02/2020 at 5.30 whereas according to Opposite Party accident happened on 04/02/2020 at 4 pm.
It is very pertinent to note that vehicle was physically produced by complainant before the Opposite Party on 05/02/2020 while obtaining the policy. Version of Opposite Party in para No.4 shows that “the complainant produced a lorry for physical examination on 05/02/2020 by placing a forged number plate up on another lorry and availed the policy”. The Opposite Party came to know that only after the claim”.
It is very strange and surprising that insurance policy can be obtained from a public sector undertaking like a New India Assurance Company by placing a fake number plate upon another lorry and walk away with vehicle insurance policy.
People noticing the fraud at least after the claim no legal action is taken against those perpetrators of the fraud, not even a police complaint is filed but kept silent, and not even, entered the box to speak about the fraud, having noted the chasis number/engine number in the policy, it is too late to believe the contention that insurance policy is obtained by placing another number plat up on another lorry. Quote strange that officials did not make any verification or enquiry about accident to vehicle already suffered prior to policy. Furthermore except the version no evidence is adduced to prove that the accident is occurred by one day prior to issue of policy.
The complainant’s nephew is examined as Pw1 and an independent witness as pw2 one Kumaran an eye witness to the incident is examined. He stated the incident of accident happened at5.10 pm. He witnessed the accident. In cross examination he denied the suggestion that he did not see the incident but deposing falsehood. But Opposite Party has no case or even suggestion that no such incident or accident occurred. He denied the suggestion that incident happened on 04/07/2020 and not on 05/02/2020. No specific reason the disbelieve the witness.
For the reason aforesaid it is held that vehicle is covered by a valid policy at the time of accident, and therefore repudiation of liability to pay repair charges is not as per law and unjustified and thus complainant is entitled to insurance benefits claimed namly Rs. 35, 8883/-.
Since vehicle is covered by valid insurance policy, its repudiation has no justification from Opposite Party and thus complainant is entitled for compensation. But considering the matter of claim, insurance benefits are allowed we find a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is quite reasonable amount of compensation payable by Opposite Party to complainant . There is no reason to deny litigation cost and we here by allowed a sum of Rs. 5000/- as litigation costs.
In the result complaint is allowed in part Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,8883/- towards repair charges with 8% interest from the date of complaint and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost to litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Power of Attorney
A2- Certificate of Registration
A3- Policy schedule cum certificate of Insurance
A4- Repudiation letter
B1- Policy
B2- Repudiation letter
B3- Summary report
B4- Out patient register
X1- Repair charges
Witness Examined
Pw1- Biju.C
Pw1- Kumaran.P.K
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
