SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,  seeking direction against the  OPs to pay  Rs.84,453/- as  insurance claim amount with an interest @12% per annum  and to pay Rs.10,000/- as  compensation to all  complainants  .

Complaint in brief :-

   According to the complaint, complainants are the legal representatives of one Mr.Francis .K.F who deceased on 19/10/2019.  The aforesaid deceased person owned a Bolero car KL-58/Y-492 and  insured  with 2^nd OP.  The  policy period  was  20/4/2019 to  19/4/2020.  As the owner died, the complainant’s become the legal heirs as well . Unfortunately on 20/1/2020 the car met with an accident and sustained damage worth Rs.84,453/- which was paid by complainants to 1^st OP who is the authorized service centre.  The 1^st OP sent information to 2^nd OP  by claiming insurance amount but 2^nd OP made  cavil excuses and not paid any single penny until this  date.  Hence this complaint.

         After filing the complaint, commission sent notice  to  OPs  and both OPs are  entered appearance before the commission and filed their version .

Version of  1^st  OP in brief:

    The OP denies the  entire  averments except those  specifically  admitted .  1^st OP admits the averment regarding the accident and its repair expense  as Rs.84,453/- and the claim made to 2^nd OP by 1^st OP.  The 1^st OP denied that they never  cheated complainant’s by not paying the amount incurred for repair.  1^st OP contended  that the vehicle was insured with 2^nd OP and they have  the liability to pay the insurance amount.  Moreover, the responsible person from 2^nd OP came to inspect the car and approved for the repair.  Hence 1^st OP repaired the car.  After that 2^nd OP stepped back from giving  insurance amount by stating that complainant’s failed to comply the mandatory policies laid by 2^nd OP in the event of death of real RC owner.  The 1^st OP has no liability towards complainant’s and  hence the complaint  against 1^st OP is liable to be dismissed.

Version of 2^nd OP:

   The 2^nd OP admitted the insurance policy of deceased person and the facts of intimation made by 1^st OP.  The claim was given by 4^th complainant and not intimated the death of his father who was the real owner,  On the survey made by 2^nd OP it was found that owner was died which is prior to the accident.  Moreover, 2^nd OP found that the legal heirs failed to transfer the insurance policy within 90days from the date of death of insured which is mandatory as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy.  In the event of the death of sole insured the policy will remain valid for a period of 3 months from the date of death of insured or until the expiry  of policy which even is earlier.  On enquiry by 2^nd OP it is found that none of the complainant’s never made any attempts to change the insurance policy with the mandatory period and hence 2^nd OP is not liable to compensate the complainants.  So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

       Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of  OP?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The  complainants produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A4.   Ext.A1 is the family membership certificate issued by  Manathana Village officer.  Ext.A2 is the insurance policy certificate issued by 2^nd OP.  Ext.A3 is the copy of tax invoice issued by 1^st OP and Ext.A4 is the death certificate of K.F.Francis.  The  5^th  complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1.    2^nd OP produced documents which is marked as Exts.B1 to B5.  Ext.B1 is the  claim intimation .  Ext. B2 is the claim form ,Ext.B3 is the true copy of  insurance policy along with its conditions. Ext.B4 is the  survey report prepared by Sri. Kunhikrishnan.P.V and Ext.B5 is the   repudiation letter. 2^nd  OP adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as DW1. 1^st OP has  no oral or documentary  evidence.  Both sides submit argument notes.

   Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidences filed before the commission to answer the issues.

Issue No.1:

   On the perusal of Ext.A1 issued by Village Officer,Manathana  dtd.9/3/2020, it is seen that complainants herein are the family members of deceased Sri.Francis who was the owner of alleged vehicle in this case.  There is no  detail discussion is necessary  with regard to Ext.A1  as none of the raised contention regarding the  family member of deceased Mr.Francis.  As per Ext.A2(Ext.B3) which was issued by 2^nd OP in the  name of deceased. Mr.Francis, it is seen that policy will expire on 19/4/2020.  According to Ext.A4, the death certificate issued by Health Department, Govt.  of Maharashtra Mr.Francis died on 19/10/2019 at Maharashtra and it was issued on 10/9/2020.  On 20/1/2020 the vehicle owned by  Mr.Francis met with an accident after his  death and  there by  vehicle sustained damage and got  repaired b y 1^st OP and was intimated to 2^nd OP.  The dispute arise with the  allotment of repair amount  to family members of deceased  Francis ie Rs.84,453/-,since the complainants failed to comply the regulations and direction of insurance policy.  Even though the accident was occurred within the period of  insurance coverage,the 2^nd OP denied  their  service as they deposed in the version and during the cross examination, by stating that complainants failed to comply conditions of insurance policy.  Let us discuss the point whether the complainants are entitled to get the repair amount of Rs.84,453/- as  accident occurred within the period of valid policy.  The 2^nd OP denied their service by  stating that complainants are not eligible to get the insurance amount  , on the basis of conditions laid in Exts.A2&A3.  The 2^nd OP contended that at the time of Exts B1&B2 , the 4^th complainant never intimated about the death of Mr.Francis to 2^nd OP which was denied by PW1 during the cross-examination and chief affidavit.  The 2^nd OP contended that the death of owner of the vehicle was not intimated to them by complainants.  But on the perusal of Ext.A4 it was issued on 10/9/20.  Hence  the statement  with regard to the  delay caused  to  change the insurance policy is reliable.  Moreover,  according to  Sec.157 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 states that the transfer of vehicle results in deemed transfer of its insurance policy including all obligations without any further process laid in “ Annamma Raju @ Bincy and others Vs. Shalet Jose and others”  by Kerala  High Court.  Hence the 2^nd OP is liable to the denial of insurance.  The 1^st OP has no role in this  case as they  already provided their service.  As per Ext.A3 it is seen that  an amount of Rs.84,453/- is incurred  towards the damage  but Ext.B4, surveyor report states that damage is of Rs.81,440/- and  the 2^nd OP specifically stated that they will provide insurance amount only on the  basis of Ext.B4.  To conclude the issue No.1, this commission is in the view that 2^nd OP is liable to provide the  amount of Rs.81,440/- to the complainant which was  stated by surveyor.   Hence the complainants are entitled to get the amount stated in Ext.B4, on the basis of  Sec.157 of Motor Vehicle Act.   Issue No.1  answered in favour of complainants

 Issue No.2:

    The complainants are entitled to get the compensation from 2^nd OP as the latter denied their service by saying that complainants  failed to comply the direction in the policy.  On the perusal of Ext.A4(death certificate) the complainants applied on  17/12/2019 which was prior to the accident and the same was issued only on 10/9/2020 which was not a willful delay from the side of complainants.  Furthermore, 2^nd OP stated  the reason for  denial of insurance policy  that the complainants failed to comply the steps to change the policy  within 90 days from the date of death as stated in insurance policy.  On the perusal of Ext.B3, there is  no such  conditions seen by the  commission.  As per Ext.B5 which is a repudiation letter issued on 13/7/2020, 2^nd OP stated the clause of policy with regard to the consequence of non compliance of their terms.  On perusing  all these aspects the commission  answered  issue No.2 is in favour of  complainants, ie complainants  are entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service  faced by them from the part of 2^nd opposite party.

           In the result complaint is allowed in part, the  2^nd  opposite party is directed to pay Rs.81,440/- as insurance claim amount and also to  pay Rs.5000/-  as compensation and  Rs. 2000/- as cost of litigation  to the complainants within 30 days of receipt of this order . In default the amount of Rs.81,440/- carries interest @10% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which complainants are at liberty to file execution application against  opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Family membership certificate

A2- Insurance policy of vehicle

A3-Receipt of repairing charge dtd.15/2/2020

A4-Death certificate

B1-Motor Accident  Claim Intimation

B2-claim form

B3- Copy of insurance policy

B4-Survey report

B5-Repudiation letter

PW1-Nithin Francis  - 5^th complainant

DW1-Jayaprakash .M.V- 2^nd OP.

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR