DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 4^th  day of  August 2012

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

            : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

            : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member              Date of filing: 21/03/2012

(C.C.No.50/2012)

1.Kumar Chandran.K

   S/o.K.Ramachandran,

  4/352, (8/813),

   “Sree Chandra”, Cherpulassery,

   Ottapalam, Palakkad – 679 503                     -        Complainant

(By Adv.K.V.Narayanan)

V/s

1.General Manager,

   Reliance General Insurance,

   2^nd Floor, Vishnu Building,

   K.P.Vallom Road,

   Kadavanthra, Cochin -682 020

2.Branch Manager,

   Reliance General Insurance

   2^nd Floor, Mashreq Trade Centre,

   Opp.Muncipal Office,

   Calicut Road – Perinthalmanna,

    Malappuram District.

 (By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran)                                     -        Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-51A-6217, purchased from PVS Automatic Company Limited. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party company for the period from 10/3/2011 to 9/3/2012. The company has received a total premium of Rs.13,094/- towards the insurance. On 19/6/2011 the vehicle met with an accident at Vaniamkulam. Due to the accident the vehicle had sustained heavy damages and the vehicle was taken to PVS, Malappuram for necessary repairs. A total amount of Rs.1,89,444/- was spent in connection with the repair of the vehicle.

The complainant had intimated the opposite party company regarding the accident and a claim was submitted as claim No.2111108805. The complainant has also signed and delivered the necessary papers as requested by the opposite party company personally. At the time of accident the vehicle was driven by Mr.Abdul Shafeel and who was having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle. After filing the complaint to the opposite party company, the complainant has received a letter from the opposite party office at Cochin stating that the claim is repudiated on the ground that the material facts was hidden. Repudiation of the claim by opposite parties is arbitrary and illegal. The only policy condition as revealed from the policy is that the person driving the vehicle should have a valid driving license. Notice sent by the opposite parties does not disclose as to who had driven the vehicle and whether the person who has driven the vehicle as per investigation holds a valid driving license. Repairs to the vehicle is completed and the vehicle is not delivered since the opposite party have not settled the claim. Then the complainant sent a notice dated 17/10/11 requesting the 1^st opposite party to settle the claim at the earliest. The copy of the notice is addressed to the 2^nd opposite party also. The opposite parties received the letter. But they had not sent any reply. The complainant is a business man and was always need of a vehicle. Since the claim was not settled by the opposite party in time the vehicle was not delivered. The complainant had spent approximately Rs.25,000/- towards travelling expenses. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,89,444/- for the loss of the vehicle and pay Rs.25,000/- as damages and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The complainant has suppressed the fact regarding filing of the complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman in the complaint filed before the Hon’ble Forum.  Also the earlier complaint filed before a competent authority is pending, the present complaint is not legally maintainable. Further opposite parties stated that the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with opposite parties for the period 10/3/2011 to 9/3/2012 and the opposite parties had received a total premium of Rs.13,094/- are all correct. Complainant had informed the opposite parties that the car had met with an accident and spent Rs.1,89,444/- towards repairs. After the registration of claim, the opposite party had deputed an independent Licensed  Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss. The claim of the complainant  that at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by one Abdul Shafeel, who was having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle is false and denied by the opposite parties. In fact the vehicle was driven by the complainant himself and the person named Abdul Shafeel was not even there in the vehicle at the time of accident and the insured was accompanied  by one of his employee named Mohammed Suhail.

Inspite of repeated demands the complainant failed to produce his driving license for scrutiny and the opposite parties suspect  that  as the insured was not having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle, he had given a false statement that the vehicle was driven by one Abdul Shafeel.  The act of driver swapping and giving false information regarding the driver who had actually driven the vehicle at the time of accident amounts to suppression of material fact by the insured which is a valid ground, as per the policy condition, for the opposite party to repudiate the claim. The opposite party had informed the complainant regarding the reason for repudiating the claim. On 30/9/11 the opposite party had intimated the complainant regarding the repudiation and grounds for repudiation vide registered letter with acknowledgement due and served on the complainant. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Both parties filed their chief affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A12 except A6 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 to B6 marked on the side of opposite parties.

Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties ?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No.1 & 2

Admittedly complainant is registered owner of the vehicle purchased from PVS Automotive company. The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties for the period from 10/3/11 to 9/3/12 and they received a total premium of Rs.13,094/-. On 19/6/11  the vehicle met with an accident. As per Ext.B2 the opposite parties repudiated the claim on 30/9/2011 on the ground that as per investigation report the insured vehicle  was not driven by Abdul Shafeel as mentioned in the claim form. Also in the investigation report stated that the insured later told that he is holding a valid driving license but failed to produce it.

Ext.A10 is the copy of driving license of the complainant, valid from 25/10/2004 to 24/10/2024. The vehicle met with an accident on 19/6/2011. So the complainant had a valid driving license at the time of accident. In Ext.B5 the copy of Survey Report shows that driver name Abdul Shafeel had a motor driving license from 22/4/2005 to 21/4/2025. Ext.A11 is the copy of driving license of Abdul Shafeel. In short the complainant and his friend named Abdul Shafeel had valid driving license at the time of accident. According to the complainant at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by Abdul Shafeel who was having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle.

The opposite parties   had not produced evidence to show that the complainant had driven the vehicle  at the time of accident. Ext.A2 shows valid policy at the time of accident. Ext.A3 shows the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle. Ext.B5 is the copy of survey report, the surveyor assessed the net claim amount is Rs.1,50,067.34/-.

Ext.B6 is the letter produced by the opposite parties at the time of cross examination of complainant. The signature in Ext.B6 admitted by the complainant. But the statement and hand writing denied by the complainant. Also the complainant deposed that the other signed person in Ext.B6 named Mr.Balachandran is not working in his office. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties. Moreover the opposite parties had not examined the investigator as a witness. According to the complainant Ext.A10 shows he is having a valid driving license to drive the car, so change of driver is not necessary for claiming damages from the insurance company. The opposite parties received a substandard amount of Rs.13,094/- towards the insurance and repudiating the claim is not fair. The opposite parties having  received the premium is contractually liable to pay the expenses incurred to the vehicle in connection with the accident.

Ext.A12 is the letter  sent by the office of the Insurance Ombudsman asking the complainant to send the details of the complaint. According to the complainant he has not resubmitted it again. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally  liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,50,067/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand and sixty seven only)  as the claim amount with 12% interest from the date of repudiation i.e. on 30/9/2011 to date of order and pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 4^th  day of August  2012.

                        Sd/-

Seena H

President

                                                                                 Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

    Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Letter sent to opposite party by the complainant

Ext.A2 – Reliance Private Car Vehicle Certificate cum Policy Schedule   

Ext.A3 – Photocopy of Registration Certificate of vehicle KL-51-A-6217

Ext.A4 – Invoice issued by PVS Ford dated 31/8/11

Ext.A5 - Claim Repudiation letter dated 30/9/11 issued to complainant by the

            1^st opposite party.

Ext.A7 – Estimation Details dated 12/6/2012 Of PVS Ford.

Ext.A8 – Cash Receipt dated 17/2/12 of PVS Automotive Company (P) Ltd.

Ext.A9 - Cash Receipt dated 05/01/12 of PVS Automotive Company (P) Ltd.

Ext.A10 – Attested copy of Driving License of Kumar Chandran.K

Ext.A11 - Attested copy of Driving License of Abdul Shafeel

Ext.A12 - Letter dated 18/11/11 received from Insurance Ombudsman, Cochi.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1 – Kumar Chandran.K

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Copy of Reliance Private Car Vehicle Certificate cum Policy Schedule  

Ext.B2 – Claim Repudiation letter dated 30/9/11 issued to complainant by the 1^st opposite party.

Ext.B3 - Investigation Report of Thrikka Solutions dated 30/7/11      

Ext.B4 – Letter dated 18/11/11 addressed to Opposite party’s Mumbai Office   issued by Insurance Ombudsman, Cochi.

Ext.B5 – Survey Report of Roopesh.P.R

Ext.B6 -  Letter sent by complainant to the 1^st opposite party.  

Witness examined on the side of the Opposite parties

DW1 – Nisna K Muhammed

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.