KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:369/2003 JUDGMENT DATED.27..11..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Jewel Arcade, : APPELLANT Layam Road, Cochin. (By Adv: Sri.Saji Isaac.K.J.) V. Manoj.P.C, M/s Vani Fashion Jewellery, : RESPONDENT Kattappana. (By Adv: Sri.S.Balachandran) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company in OP:109/02 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.44,847/- with interest at 6% from the date of complaint and Rs.1500/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a vehicle on 5..7..2001 and the vehicle was registered on 10..7..2001. The vehicle met with an accident on 26..7..2001. But the opposite party has given only Rs.59,286/- towards the amount claimed for the repairs of the vehicle. As per the bills of the repairers the amount would work out to Rs.1,04,133/-. 3. It is the contention of the opposite party that a sum of Rs.59,286/- was paid as the matter was settled on non standard basis as the vehicle was not having fitness certificate. It is the contention that the vehicle was insured as a commercial vehicle and hence the policy conditions have not been satisfied at the time of the accident. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of PW1, DW1 and 2, Exts.P1 to P4 and Exts.R1 to R5. 5. It is seen from the documents produced that the vehicle has been registered as a commercial vehicle only on 1..10..2001 the date of issuance of the fitness certificate. Ext.P1 policy taken on 5..7..2001 the date of purchase and the policy is for a commercial vehicle. It is the contention of the complainant that at the time of the accident the vehicle was being used as a private vehicle. We find that the above contention cannot be upheld as the policy taken is for a commercial vehicle. We find that the policy being a contract the parties are strictly bound by the terms of the policy. It is submitted that considering the fact that the vehicle was a new one and that there was policy coverage the appellant has reduced a certain amount from the amount assessed by the surveyor ie, Rs.77,178/-. The complainant was given Rs.59,286/- on non standard basis. We find that the finding of the Forum in this regard cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
