ORDER
By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case is that the complainant had insured his vehicle bearing No.KL8 AD 3653 Mahindra pick up GCV with 1st respondent. The policy No. is 12599/05 and the period of the policy was for 31/1/05 to 30/1/06. The vehicle was met with an accident and complainant applied to get claim amount but it was not given. This act of respondent is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that it is true that the complainant had insured his vehicle bearing No.KL8 AD 3653 Mahindra pick up GCV. The vehicle was met with an accident on 30/4/05. As per the FIR and claim form submitted by the complainant at the time of accident the vehicle was carrying five persons as against the permitted number of three. The complainant himself was driving the vehicle, he and three of the other four passengers in the vehicle sustained injuries. Since the overloading of the vehicle was with the knowledge and permission of the owner, who himself was driving the vehicle the claim was repudiated. There was no deficiency in service. The approximate net loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs.50,186.50. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are that:
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. The evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1, Exhibits P1 to P3 and Exhibits R1 to R9.
5. The complaint is filed to get insurance amount from the respondents for the damage caused to the vehicle of complainant which was insured with the 1st respondent. The vehicle was met with an accident on 30/4/05 in Thrissur district and the complainant applied to get policy amount from the respondents. But it was not given. The respondents would say that there was overloading in the vehicle and the permitted number of passengers is three.
6. The respondents taken the contention that as per the FIR and claim form submitted by the complainant at the time of accident the vehicle was carrying five persons as against the permitted number of three. There were five persons in the vehicle at the time of accident. So the claim was repudiated by the respondents.
7 The respondents produced Exhibits R1 to R9 documents in which Exhibit R4 is the copy of FIR registered by the Police. Accordingly the accident was not because of the overloading of the vehicle. It can be seen that one bus which was coming on the back side of the van hit on the vehicle of complainant and that vehicle hit on the vehicle which was gone in front. So the cause of accident is not the overloading and the repudiation of claim on this ground is definitely deficiency in service. If the cause of accident was because of the overloading the insured will not entitle for any claim amount.
8. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P3 documents are marked. The claim of complainant is Rs.60,500/- along with interest. But there is no evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the same. The surveyor who has inspected the vehicle assessed the loss as Rs.50,186.50. The surveyor is examined as RW1 and Exhibit R7 is the survey report. There is nothing to discard the genuineness of Exhibit R7. So the complainant is entitled to get the amount assessed by surveyor.
9. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.50,186.50 and Rs.2,500/- as compensation with costs Rs.500/- within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Otherwise the loss amount will carry 12% interest per annum from today till realization.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 3rd day of August 2012.
