Complainant : Rukia Muhammed, Puliyath House, P.O.Kandanassery,
Thrissur.
(By Adv.A.D.Benny, Thrissur)
Respondent : Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Simis
Complex, Kuruppam Road, Thrissur.
(By Adv. T.R.Sivan, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case of complainant is that the complainant has insured her vehicle KL-8Z-0003 with the respondent vide policy No.100606/31/03/12877. The period of policy was 27/10/03 to 26/10/04. The vehicle was hit by a lorry and damage was caused. So the complainant applied to get insurance amount from the respondent. But it was not paid. The complainant has occurred a loss for Rs.40,000/-. The rejection of claim is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that the respondent admits that the complainant is a holder of policy No. 100606/31/03/12877 of her vehicle KL-8Z 0003. The policy period is from 27/10/03 to 26/10/04. The vehicle was hit by a lorry on the back side at Kalady on 22/11/03 while the said vehicle was carrying pilgrims from Guruvayur to Sabarimala. None of the pilgrims were injured in the vehicle but the back side of the vehicle was damaged as seen in the extract of GD of Kalady policy station on 27/11/03 issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalady dated 24/11/03. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by this respondent on the ground that the permit submitted by the insured is not valid at the time of accident. The permit submitted by the complainant for her vehicle KL-8Z 0003 of Mahindra Scorpio, the period of validity of the permit is from 31/12/03 to 31/12/08. The date of accident was on 22/11/03. At the time of accident there was no permit. This respondent has issued letter dated 20/1/04 addressed to the complainant asking her to produce temporary valid permit if any at the time of accident. But no such temporary valid certificate was produced by complainant. This respondent is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant in the absence of valid permit. As per Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act complainant is not permitted to use the vehicle as a transport vehicle without permit. There is no deficiency in service. The amount claimed by the complainant is too high and is without any basis. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.40,000/- or interest. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are :
1) Was there any deficiency in service from the respondent?
2) If so reliefs and costs?
4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1, P2 and Exhibit R1 to R12 and oral testimony of PW1.
5. Complaint is filed to get insurance claim amount along with compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle owned by complainant. It is the case that the vehicle KL-8Z 0003 insured with respondent, while plying from Grurvayur to Sabarimala met with an accident by hitting a lorry on the back side and got damage. The complainant submitted claim to the company but refused by the company stating that there was no permit at the time of accident.
6. The respondent admits the policy, accident etc. The only reason for rejection of claim is lack of permit at the time of accident. Company stated that the permit issued and submitted by complainant was for the period from 31/12/03 to 31/12/08 in which date of accident was 22/11/03. So at the time of accident there was no permit. The defence taken by the respondent company is that the complainant is not entitled to any amount since lack of permit at the time of accident.
7. The husband of complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 and P2 marked. In the box also he admitted that at that time permit was not obtained. So the question to be decided whether the complainant is entitled to get amount in the absence of permit at the time of accident. The counsel for complainant argued that the absence of permit is not the reason for accident. The accident was caused by hitting another vehicle on the back side of the disputed vehicle. At the same time the counsel for respondent company argued that the policy is between owner and company. So the terms and conditions should be strictly complied. He argued in the light of Section 147 and 149 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act. He has produced copy of ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (3) KLT 454 (SC). It is stated in the ruling that the plying of vehicle without permit- in terms of Sec.149(2) defence is available to the insurer. It is stated that plying of a vehicle without permit is an infraction. In terms of Sec.149(2) defence is available to the insurer but acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The use of vehicle without permit is a minor infringement of terms and conditions of the contract.
8. The respondent argued without pleading that the complainant is a commercial consumer. There is only argument on this aspect and no case is there in the counter. So it should be discarded without any discussion.
9. The complainant claims Rs.40,000/- for damages in addition to compensation. She has not produced any evidence before the Forum to prove that Rs.40,000/- is her loss. The respondent produced Exhibits R1 to R12 documents in which R11 is the motor survey report. The surveyor has assessed the loss as Rs.29,290/- after his survey. There is no other evidence to assess the loss by complainant and no steps taken by complainant to call for the same. Since there is no other evidence except Exhibit R11 the complainant is entitled to get the amount assessed by surveyor in Exhibit R11.
10. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.29,290/- the amount assessed by surveyor and compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs Rs.300/- within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the amount is not paid the complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% for Rs.29,290/- the amount assessed by the surveyor from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of September 2011.
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Copy of certificate of insurance
Ext. P2 Copy of lawyer notice
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – P.K.Muhammed Ali
Respondent’s Exhibits
Ext. R1 Copy of Certificate of insurance with terms and conditions
Ext. R2 Copy of permit
Ext. R3 Authorization for tourist permit
Ext. R4 Extract of GD of Kalady police station
Ext. R5 Motor claim form
Ext. R6 Supplement to motor claim form
Ext. R7 Lr. 20/1/04
Ext. R8 Repudiation letter
Ext. R9 Lawyer notice
Ext. R10 Survey report
Ext. R11 Motor survey report
Ext. R12 Bills – 2 Nos.
Id/- President
