CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 193/2010
Monday, the 28th day of February, 2011.
Petitioner : Stanly Kurian,
Muthirakkalayil,
Marangattupilly P.O
Andoor Kara, Meenachil Taluk,
Kottayam Dist.
(ByAdv.P.V Joseph&C.IEasaw)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Corporate Claims Department,
Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46
Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai – 600014,
reptd. by its Managing Director.
2) The Branch Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd.
IInd Floor, Amrutha Tower,
Opp. Maharaja’s Ground,
KPCC Junction,
M.G Road, Cochin.
(By Adv. T.M. Babu)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
This case is remanded by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Deressal Commission as per order in appeal No. 388/09 Dtd: 13..7..2010. As per order of the Hon’ble State Commission earlier order passed by the Fora in CC No. 174/07 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to this forum. Hon’ble State Commission allow the forum to permit the parties to adduce further evidence if they so desire and dispose of the matter afresh. Both parties has not adduced any further evidence.
-2-
Case of the petitioner is that the Maruthi 800 car of the petitioner insured with the opposite party met with an accident on 7..1..2007. The car was completely engulfed in fire. Although the vehicle was fitted with LPG kit at the time of the accident the vehicle was running on petrol. Sparking of fire below the car was noticed and the vehicle was stopped. The fire was on account of self ignition that resulted from battery short circuit. Only GD entry was made by the police, as there was no loss of life. Insurer / opposite party repudiated the claim. Petitioner claims a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- towards damage of the car with interest at 12% and compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that fitting of the LPG kit was not disclosed to the opposite parties . For the fitting LPG kit insured is liable to pay an additional sum of premium to cover any risk arising there on. GR 42 and IMT 25 of Indian Motor Tariff envisages payment of additional premium. Although fitting of the LPG kit was endorsed
in the RC Book the same was not incorporated in the policy. Hence the opposite parties are not liable.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by both parties Ext. A1 to A6 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party.
-3-
Point No. 1
Petitioner produced a repudiation letter issued by the opposite party said document is marked as Ext. A5. In Ext. A5 it is stated that there has been a material alteration in the vehicle which was not inform to the company and relevant premium was not paid. Opposite parties produced certain document out of it RC Book and survey report Hon’ble State Commission had given an opportunity to both sides to adduce any further evidence if they desired. But both parties do not adduce any fresh evidence.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that documents including regulation of Tariff Advisory Committee is statutory nature and is sub ordinate legislation. So, it need not be proved by examing the opposite party. We also agree with the argument of the counsel for the opposite party that the regulations of the TAC published by Government of India through gazette notification and is a peace of sub ordinate legislation. According to the opposite party vehicle insured is a a bi-fuel vehicle. As per GR 42 insured shall remit an additional premium of 4 % of the value of such kit in case of package policy and Rs. 60/- for covering liability only cover. For getting coverage for bi-fuel system vehicle endorsement of IMT No. 25, after remitting proper premium is highly essential. Here complainant has not remitted any amount as per GR 42. Hence insurance company is not liable.
GR - 42 reads as follows: “In case of vehicle fitted with bi-fuel system such as petrol, diesel and CNG/LPG kit fitted to the vehicle is to be insured separately, at an additional premium at the rate of 4% on the value of
-4-
such kit to be specifically declared by the insured in the proposal form and or any letter forming part of the proposal form. In our view if GR 42 is not complied the result is that complainant will not be entitled to claim compensation for the LPG kit. IMT 25 is also with respect to loss of damages to the CNG/LPG kit. IMT envisage an additional premium of Rs. 60/- per vehicle to be charged towards liability only cover. Admittedly the policy of the petitioner is packaged policy so in our view the above clause 9 C of IMT 25 is applicable only to liability only policy and not packaged policy. The other contention raised by the opposite party is with regard to the declaration by the insured in the proposal form. Proposal form is produced by the opposite party. In the proposal form produced by the opposite party their does not contain a declaration, so that contention is not sustainable. In our view repudiation of the claim of the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. Ext. B1 is the copy of the survey report. The surveyor reported that the liability of the opposite party should not exceeds Rs. 68,965/-. Policy produced is marked as Ext. A2. In Ext. A2 (a) policy condition it is stated that the company will indemnify insured against loss or damages or insured by fire explosion self ignation or lightening. It is stated that I DV shall be treated as ‘market value’ through out policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of total loss. The surveyor assessed the salvage value of the vehicle as Rs. 500/-. According to the surveyor vehicle is damaged beyond repair. Therefore the opposite party insurance company is liable to pay the petitioner the insured declared value of Rs. 1,25,000/-.
-5-
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. In the result opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of CC No. 174/2007 till realization . Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- as litigation cost to the petitioner.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Document for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of the registration certificate.
Ext. A2: Certificate of insurance
Ext. A2(a) Conditions of policy
Ext. A3: Copy of the driving licence of the petitioners.
Ext. A4: Copy of the repudiation letter Dtd: 6..2..2007 issued by the opposite party
Ext. A5: Repudiation letter Dtd: 7..3..2007
Ext. A6: Office copy of the lawyer’s notice Dtd: 8..5..2007
Ext. A6(a) Postal receipt
(b) Post acknowledgement card.
Documents for the opposite party:
Ext. B1: Copy of certificate of registration
Ext. B2: Copy of survey report
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
