C.M. Mammed Haji V/S The manager,The Oriental Insurance Comapny ltd - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

StateCommission

20/2007

The manager,The Oriental Insurance Comapny ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.M. Mammed Haji - Opp.Party(s)

George Cherian

19 Jan 2011

ORDER

First Appeal No. 20/2007

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District )

1. The manager,The Oriental Insurance Comapny ltd

Regional Office,Ernakulam North,Kochin

BEFORE:
	HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.20/07

JUDGMENT DATED 19.1.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd;

Badagara, reptd. by its

Manager, Regional Office, -- APPELLANT

Erakulam North, Kochi-18.

(By Adv.George Cherian)

Vs.

C.M.Mammed Haji,

Keeyanambidattil House,

Puliyar P.O, -- RESPONDENT

Parakkadavu, Nadapuram.

(By Adv.D.Kishore)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.427/05 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation apart from an amount of Rs.48,352/- towards the repair charges of the vehicle.

2. It is the case of the complainant that the Toyota Qualis Car owned by the complainant and covered by the policy of the opposite parties met with an accident on 20.7.05. The repair cost amounted to Rs.64,265/-. The claim was repudiated. It is contended that the complainant was having driving license since 1997. The licence expired on 13.5.04 and it has been renewed with effect from 13.9.05. Due to oversight, it was not renewed in time.

3. The opposite parties have contended that as per the survey report, amount calculated is Rs.46,852/-. There was policy violation as the driver was not having an effective driving license on the date of the accident as the driving license had expired on 13.5.04.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, B1 & B2.

5. The Forum has held that the driver/owner had a valid driving license and that only on account of the fact that the driving license was not renewed in time the Insurance Company cannot disown liability.

6. We find that the contention of the appellants/insurance company that the condition of the policy that the driver should have an effective driving license has been violated cannot be found fault with. It is admitted that the driving license expired on 13.5.04 and the same was renewed subsequent to the accident and hence violation of the policy condition in this regard cannot be disputed. The terms of contract of insurance has to be strictly interpreted is the settled low. Hence, the order of the Forum in this regard totally up-holding the claim of the complainant cannot be sustained. All the same, in view of the fact, that the complainant had a driving license since 1997 is not disputed and that the license has been renewed soon after the date of the accident. We find that it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties/appellants to settle the claim on non-standard basis. Hence, we direct the opposite parties to pay 75% of the amount of repair charges as assessed by the surveyor. The same would work out Rs. 36,264/-. The appellant/opposite party is directed to pay the above amount within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 19/1/2011, the date of this order. The direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- is set aside.