Sri. George Baby (President):
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the complainant for getting the relief from the opposite parties.
2. The complainant’s case is brief as follows: That the complainant is a Registered Owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-03 Q 9459. The said vehicle was insured with the erstwhile L&T General Insurance Company Ltd. Subsequently which has been merged with the present opposite party and the insurance was valid from 07/06/2016 to 06/06/2017. On 21/05/2017 at Vamanapuram the vehicle hit against the Electric post due to loss of control of the vehicle at that time. One Joby Varghese was driving the vehicle. There after the complainant paid Rs. 14,989/- to the KSEB as damages caused to the electric post. In the accident the complainant vehicle also damaged but the loss suffered to the vehicle on the account of accident was indemnified by the opposite party. The complainant put forward a request to the opposite party to reimburse the above said amount of Rs. 14,989/- which he paid to the KSEB by way of third party damage. The opposite party has not taken any step on such request, subsequently the complainant issued a notice to the opposite party for the same grievance, but that has not yield any result till this time. Hence this complaint.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and field their version and main contentions in the version are as follows. The complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The issuance of the policy is admitted for getting the amount reimbursed the complainant ought to have follow the procedure mentioned in chapter XII of the Motor Vehicle Act. As per section 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act claim, Tribunals have been constituted in the Districts to adjudicate upon the claims of the third parties, sustained bodily injury or damage to property and the jurisdiction of other courts have been ousted. The subject matter and the cause of action of this consumer complaint squarely falls within the realm of tribunals under Motor Vehicle Act and this Forum have no jurisdiction for trail. As per condition No.I of the policy notice in writing the company shall be made immediately upon the occurrence of the accident. The said condition has not been complied by the complainant. The condition No.2 of the policy prohibits that no offer promise or payment made by the insured otherwise than with the written consent of the insurance company do not bind the company. The company had acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. There was no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and hence the opposite party pray for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the basis of the pleading of the complainant and on the basis of the rival contentions put forward by the opposite party we framed the following issues for trial.
1). Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2). Whether the complaint is entitled to get reliefs from the opposite
party?
3). If so relief and cost?
5. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and that is more or less in tune with his complaint.The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exhibit A1 to A9 were marked through PW1. Exhibit A1 is the copy of the policy numbered as 51510100069678000 valid from 07/06/2016 to 06/06/2017. Ext.A2 is the copy of G.D entry prepared by Kilimanoor Police. Ext. A3 is the copy of licence of Mr.Joby Varghese. Ext. A4 is the copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle bearing No. KL.03. Q 9459. Ext. A5 is the copy of the estimate prepared by KSEB. Ext.A6 is the copy of the receipts (2 in number). Ext.A7 is the copy of the notice dated:16/11/2017 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. A8 is the copy of the postal receipts and Ext. A9 is the postal acknowledgement card. The opposite party had examined one witness as DW1 and through him B1 to B3 were marked. B1 is the copy of policy certificate Ext. B2 is its terms and conditions Ext. B3 is the copy of Power of Attorney in favour of DW1. After the closure of the evidence we heard both sides.
6. Point No.I& II:-For the sake of brevity and convenience consider Point No. I and II together. The complainant case is that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing No. KL-Q-9459 and said vehicle was insured with opposite party and the policy was valid from 07/06/2016 to 06/06/2017. The issuance of the policy is admitted by the opposite party. The complainant vehicle hit against the electric post on 21/05/2017 at Vamanapuram due to loss the control of vehicle. After that the complainant has paid Rs. 14,989/- to the concerned KSEB office as per their direction. The payment of said sum is fortified through Ext. A6 receipts. The complainant’s specific contention is that he is entitled to realise the said sum of Rs. 14,989/- from the opposite party, as he is valid policy holder and such amount has been paid by way of 3rd party damage. Even though the complainant made so many requests to the opposite party to get it reimbursed the said amount, the opposite party has not acted positively. Hence the complainant approached this Forum. On the other side the main contention of the opposite party is that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum on the trapping of section 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. While we evaluating said contention it can be inferred that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act will help the complainant to maintain a complaint before this Forum Section 3 reads as follows.
7.Section 3 Act not in derogation of any other law:
The provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
8. The opposite party has not a case that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. So we have no hesitation to hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no dispute that the complainant was the insured by virtue of the policy issued by the opposite party and by virtue of said policy of insurance the car bearing registration No.KL-3Q 9459 was insured with the opposite party. It is also admitted fact that during the subsistence of the insured policy the aforesaid car met with an accident and in that accident the car hit against on electric post owned by the KSEB. As per the insurance policy issued by the opposite party the 3rd party damage is also covered by the policy if that be so the opposite party is bound to honour the claim made by the complaint with respect to the car KL-3Q- 9459. The failure to honour the said claim amount to deficiency in service. The fact that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.14,989/- to the KSEB by way of 3rd party damage can be seen from Ext. A5 to A6. The aforesaid document would make it abundantly clear that KSEB demanded a sum of Rs. 14,989/- from the complainant for causing damage to the electric post and that the complainant paid the aforesaid amount of Rs. 14,989/-.The damagecaused to the properties of 3rd parties are covered by the policy of insurance. The opposite party being the insurer was bound to indemnify the complainant as insured against the damage caused to the property of 3rd party. There is no dispute that the complainant paid Rs. 14,989/- by way of compensation to KSEB and the complainant by way of this complaint requested to get that amount because of the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Admittedly the opposite party has not settled the issue so far. In this context it is to be noted that Motor Accident Claims Tribunals Constituted under the Motor Vehicle Act have no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes regarding deficiency of service. Only a consumer can move the District Forum to get the grievance of the consumer redressed. The Motor Accident Tribunals are not at all competent to entertain the issue involving the interest of consumers. Thus in all respect the case put forward by the complainant and the issue there is can only be entertained by the Forums constituted under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. In the said circumstances we found Point No.I and II in favour of complainant.
9. Point No. 3:-In the light of fore going discussion we found Point No.3 is also in favour of the complainant.
10. In the result the complaint is allowed and we pass the following order.
1). The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 14,989/- (Rupees
Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine) to the complainant
with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.
2). The opposite party is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of
order onwards)
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2020.
(Sd/-)
George Baby,
(President)
Smt. N. ShajithaBeevi (Member-I) : (Sd/-)
Sri.NishadThankappan (Member-II) :(Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1:C.S. Mathew
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1:Copy of the policy numbered as 51510100069678000 valid from 07/06/2016
to 06/06/2017
A2: G.D entry prepared by Kilimanoor Police
A3: Copy of licence of Mr.Joby Varghese. A4: copy of the letter dated 18/05/2017
issued by the 1st opposite party.
A4: Copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle bearing No. KL.03. Q 9459.
A5: Copy of the estimate prepared by KSEB.
A6: Copy of the receipts (2 in number).
A7: Notice dated:16/11/2017 issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
A8: Copy of the postal receipts.
A9: Postal acknowledgement card.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1:AneeshBhaskaran
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1:Copy of policy certificate.
B2: Terms and Conditions
B3: Copy of Power of Attorney in favour of DW1.
Copy to:- (1) Mr. C.S.Mathew,
Chemparathiel, Thonniamala P.O,Pathanamthitta, Pin :689668
(2) HDFC Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3rd floor, Safa Trade center, Railway Station Road,
Nagambadam, Kottayam – 686001.
(3) The Stock File.
