Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/14/239

Moosa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2019

ORDER

D.O.F:03/05/2016

                                                                                               D.O.O:29/07/2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.139/16                                                                                                                                                

Dated this, the 29^th   day of July 2019

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M  : MEMBER

 

K.Shareef,

S/o Amoo, Cherumba,

Kallanthol, Ambalathara, Pullur village , P.o Pullur -671531              :Complainant

Anadashram (via) -671531, Kasaragod District,

Rep: by his Power of attorney holder C.H Abbas,

S/o C.H Amoo, Cherumba, Kallanthol, Ambalathara

Belur village, P.O Pullur- 671531 , Anadashram (Via) Kasaragod

(Adv: P. Narayanan)

 

The Manager

Future Generali India Insurance Co, Ltd

Branch Office, 5^th Floor, Sky Tower, Opposite Hotel Hyson

Mavoor Road Junction, Bank Road, Kozhikode- 673001                    : Opposite Party

(Adv: Santhosh Thomas)

ORDER

 

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M  : MEMBER

 

            That the vehicle No: KL 60 G-5668 belongs to the complainant was insured to the Opposite Party as per the policy No: 2015/ V3 657902 – FPV for the period from 24/03/2015 to 23/03/2016.  The premium amount was Rs.6219/- which had been paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party.  The above said vehicle met with an accident on 17/01/2016 and completely damaged and a claim form was submitted to the Opposite Party.  The surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party estimated the repair charges as Rs.1,18,507.46/-.  The complainant has repaired the vehicle at an authorized work shop by paying Rs.77277/-. The vehicle was put in the work shop from 17/01/2016 to 10/03/2016.  The complainant had to hire taxi vehicle for his personal use and paid Rs. 13,000/- as taxi charges. The claim form the Opposite Party has not settled the claim due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from monitory loss. Hence this complaint.  It is stated that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.

            The notice sent to the Opposite Party is duly served and accordingly to the Opposite Party entered appearance before the Forum, who filed written version.

            In the version the Opposite Party admitted the insurance policy but denied all other allegations of the complaint.  The Opposite Party contented that they issued the policy to the complainant based on the proposal form in which the complainant declared that there was no claim in the expiring policy.  The said declaration is reproduced in the policy and the company had given 20% deduction to the basic premium of Rs.5318.25 amounting Rs.1063.65/-.  Immediately getting the claim form of the complainant, the Opposite Party appointed a survey to inspect the vehicle and asses the loss.  On enquiry with the premium policy of the vehicle it was learned that there was an earlier claim in the previous year.  Therefore the declaration made by the complainant in the proposal form was a misrepresentation of material facts and break of good faith and the Opposite Party is not liable to settle the claim.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Based on the rival contentions of the parties following issues are raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2. If so what is the relief and costs.

From the side of the complainant, one C.H.Abbas, the brother and power of attorney of the complaint has been examined.  He filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext.A1 to A4 are marked.

            Documents Ext A1 is the invoice and the bill for the repair charges issued by the Indus Motors Ltd.  Ext A2 is the copy of the registered notice , Ext A3 is the postal acknowledgment card , Ext A4 is the power of Attorney Dated 05/03/2016.  The Pw1 was cross examined.  From the side of the Opposite Parties no oral evidence adduced.  The documents Ext B1 to B3 marked.  Ext B1 is the policy certificate Ext B2 is the copy of the letter dt: 17/02/2016.  Ext B3 is the letter Dt: 10/03/2016.

            For the convenience both the issues can be considered together.  The specific case of the complainant is that his vehicle got damaged in an accident and the Opposite Party did not settled his claim in time inspite of valid insurance.  In this case the Opposite Party has admitted the issuance of insurance policy.  But their contentions is that since the complainant filed a declaration showing “no claim” in the previous expiring in policy at time of filing proposal form.  Which is a misrepresentation the policy itself is void abinitio.  The complainant obtained a deduction of 20% to the basic premium as no claim bonus.  The complainant denied the filing of such declaration.  No proposal from is produced before the Forum for verification as to know whether there is such a declaration attached to.  Also there is no details’ regarding the previous claim during the expiring policy.  There is no dispute regarding the insurance policy and fact that the accident occurred during the validity period.  In the absence of any reliable evidence, regarding previous claim fare it is not justifiable to hold that the insurance policy is abinitio void on the ground of a misrepresentation in a declaration.

            Therefore this Forum is of the considered view that there is a valid insurance policy and the accident occurred during the validity period and hence the complainant is entitled for the benefits of the insurance policy.  The Opposite Party should have been settled the claim of the complaint.  Non settling of the claim of the complainant is a sheer negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships and Opposite Party is liable to compensate for that.  Ext A1 shows that the complainant had paid Rs.77,277/- as repair charges.  Regarding taxi charges there is no documents and details of expenses.  This Forum holds that Rs. 15000/- will be a reasonable compensation for the mental agony and hardships.

            Therefore the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.77, 277/- the repair charges paid with 12 % interest from 03/05/2016, the date of complaint to the date of realization together with an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the compensation and Rs. 3000/- towards the cost.

            Time of compliance is 30 days with in the receipt of copy of the judgement.

     Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1.Invoice Dt: 10/03/2016

A2. Lawyer Notice  Dt: 23/02/2016

A3. Postal acknowledgment

A4. Power of Attorney Dt: 05/03/2016

B1. Policy certificate Dt: 24/03/1015

B2. A Letter Dt: 17/02/2016

B3. A letter Dt: 10/03/2016

Witness Examined

Pw1. Abbas C.H

      Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

 

Ps/