KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

  APPEAL  NO.357/2007

                                  JUDGMENT DATED:27.08.2011

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Palakkad, R/by its Regional Manager,

Regional Office, Ernakulam North,                    : APPELLANT

Kochi – 18.

(By Adv:Sri.George Cheriyan)

            Vs.

Hemalatha Raveendran,

W/o Raveendran,

Gokulam, Peringannur Post,                               : RESPONDENT

Peringode (Via), Palakkad.

                                                 JUDGMENT  

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated:20.4.2007 of CDRF, Palakkad in CC.113/06  that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.  By the impugned order, the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.38,348/- with cost of Rs.1000/- within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest at 12% per annum for the whole amount of Rs.39,348/- from the date of order till realization.

 2.     The complainant has approached the Forum stating that she is the owner of a vehicle bearing No.KL-9/53399 and that the vehicle had an insurance coverage with the opposite party and that on 30.3.2006 the vehicle met with an accident.  It is stated that the opposite party deputed a surveyor and the surveyor has inspected and filed a report after conducting the survey.  However it is her case that though she made claim for the reimbursement of the repair charges, the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident did not have a badge to drive the vehicle.  Alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.54,598/- within 30 days from the date of complaint.

 3.     The opposite party, in the version, contended that the driver of the vehicle which was insured with the opposite party had no authority and effective driving license at the time of accident.  However it was admitted that the vehicle had a policy coverage at the time of accident.  The very strong case of the opposite party was that the driver had no license to drive a taxi car, and the complainant’s vehicle being a taxi car the driver ought to have an authorized license including badge issued by the licensing authority.  Justifying their action in repudiating the claim, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Both sides filed affidavits.  Exts.A1 to A7 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.

5.      Heard both sides.

6.      The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party argued before us that the order of the Forum below in directing to pay the repair charges spent by the complainant is without any basis and the same is based without appreciation of the legal position in the case.  It is his very case that the complainant did not have a case that the driver of her vehicle had a license to drive the taxi car.  It is also his case that the Forum below ought to have found that the driver did not posses the required badge for driving the taxi car and hence the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside.

7.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He has submitted before us that the car being a light motor vehicle, the opposite party was unjust in repudiating the claim and hence there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  He has also advanced the contention that the opposite party could not be heard to say that for driving a taxi car the driver should have a badge also.  It is argued before us that the driver possessed a driving license to drive light motor vehicle at the time of accident and hence the order of the Forum below is liable to be upheld and appeal dismissed with compensatory cost.

8.      On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that it is admitted by both parties that the vehicle had an insurance coverage at the time of accident.  It is also the admitted fact that the vehicle had met with an accident and the surveyor of the opposite party had conducted a survey though no report is seen filed.  The complainant would argue that the driver of the vehicle had a license to drive light motor vehicle.  On the other hand, the opposite party contended that the driver of the vehicle must have a badge also for driving the vehicle of the complainant which is a taxi car.  The opposite party has repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver did not possess the badge which is a must for driving the taxi car.  On a perusal of the documents produced by the complainant we find that Ext.A2 is the copy of driving license of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the complainant which met with the accident.  In page 7 there is an endorsement stating that he is authorized to drive a transport vehicle with effect from 2.4.1996.  However it is also seen that the complainant has given a badge number as 403/06/PP.  The learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that the driver has obtained the badge after the accident on 30.3.2006 and hence at the time of accident he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle only.  He has also contended that the driver was authorized to drive only autorikshas and not taxi cars.  However we find that the driver had a license to drive a light motor vehicle at the time of accident.  It is also found that the opposite party has admitted that the vehicle had met with the accident and it is found that the complainant had spent Rs.38,348/- towards repair charges as per Ext.A6 bills.  It is further found that the opposite party’s case is only with regard to the issuance of a badge to the driver by the licensing authority.  We find that this is a fit case where the principle of settlement of claims on non standard basis can be applied as held by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (II (2010) CPJ 9 SC).  It is our considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the claim processed at non standard basis which is at 75% of the total amount spent for repairs.  The opposite party is liable to pay 75% of the amount of Rs.38,348/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order with cost of Rs.1000/- as ordered by the Forum below.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above.  Thereby the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.28761/- (Rs.Twenty eight thousand seven hundred and sixty one only) to the complainant being 75% of the repair charges amounting to Rs.38,348/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order along with costs of Rs.1000/- failing which the amounts shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default till payment.  In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Office is directed to forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

VL.