Kerala

Idukki

CC/101/2021

Shelce Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maxvalu Credits and Investment ltd - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 02/04/2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 22^nd day of  September  2022

Present :

                     SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                     PRESIDENT

                     SMT.ASAMOL P.                                 MEMBER                      

                     SRI.AMPADY K.S.                               MEMBER                    

CC NO.73/2019

Between

Complainant                        :  Naiju V Varghese,

                                               Panthalloor House, Calvary Mount Kara,

                                               Thankamany Village, Idukki Taluk.

                                               (By Adv.Shiji Joseph)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                        And

Opposite Party                     : 1 . Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                                    Registered office, Reliance Centre, 19,

                                                    Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate,

                                                    Mumbai 400 001, Represented by its Manager.

                                                    (By Adv.K.Pradeepkumar)

                                               2 .  B.R.D.Car World, Konikkara NH 47-Bypass,

                                                     Thrissur – 680 306, Represented by its Manager.

                                               3 . United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                                     Divisional Office Thrissur,

                                                     Represented by its Divisional Manager.

                                                     (By Adv.Sony George)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

          Complainant's case is briefly discussed hereunder:-

 .
          1 .Complainant is registered owner of Maruthi  Swift Dezire VXI Car bearing registration number KL-06-G 0101.  Complainant has insured the car with first opposite party.  Second opposite party is the authorised service centre of Maruthi car and third opposite party is the insurer of the second opposite party.  The second opposite party insured the vehicle in the yard against flooding and  perils due to fire and natural calamities.

 

 

                                                                                                      (Cont......2)

-2-

2 . Complainant's friend one Mr.Shaju took the car on 16/05/2018 for going to treatment of his son.  Unfortunately, the car was hit by a lorry having registration No.TN 37CK 0067.  In the accident, complainant's vehicle sustained severe damages and entrusted to 2^nd opposite party for repair.

 

3 . While the vehicle was under the possession of second opposite party, the vehicle was damaged in flood water beyond repair.  Subsequently, complainant claimed for the total loss of the vehicle.  However, the claim was repudiated.

 

4 . The claim of the vehicle was repudiated by first opposite party alleging the complainant has sold the vehicle to one Mr.Siby.  The allegation is false.  No such transfer was done by complainant.

 

5 . After the flood, first and second opposite parties asked the complainant to claim the loss from third opposite party.  But, all the opposite parties are not willing to settle the claim for one reason or other.

 

6 . These opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to settle the claim of complainant.  The denial of the claim on untenable grounds is deficiency in service of opposite parties.  Hence he has prayed the following reliefs.

 

(a)  The opposite parties may be ordered to pay Rs.3,40,745/- the value of the vehicle as total loss damage to the complainant along with 14% interest from the date of claim to till the date of payment.

 

(b)  Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.1 Lakh as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to complainant.

 

Upon notice from the Commission, first and third opposite parties were entered appearance.  Second opposite party has not appeared, hence he was exparte.  First and third opposite parties have filed written version. 

 

7 . According to first opposite party, complaint is not maintainable as against this opposite  party.  This opposite party has no branch office within the jurisdiction  of  this  Honourable  Forum.   Hence, this  Forum  has  no  territorial

                                                                                                       (Cont......3)

-3-

jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  This opposite party had an insurance contract with complainant for the coverage of vehicle No.KL/06-G 0101 as on the alleged date of accident.  But during enquiry of the claim, it is understood that the complainant had sold the vehicle much before the date of accident and one Mr.Sibi was the owner in possession of the vehicle.  Complainant had no insurable interest on the vehicle.  Driver of the vehicle was not the employee of the complainant.  Complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.  As per the Motor Vehicles Act, transferor shall intimate the insurer and the registering Authority with in 14 days of the transfer. As per the contract of insurance, transferee shall get the certificate of insurance, transferred in his name within 14 days of the transfer.  In this case such an application is not filed by the transferee.  Hence, he is not entitled to get benefit of the contract.

 

8 .   Second opposite party is liable to make good the loss to the vehicle, while it is in their possession.  Third opposite party had insured all the vehicles kept in the yard of the second opposite party.  Hence third opposite party alone is liable to compensate the owner of the vehicle for the damages caused to the vehicle, while it was in the custody of the second opposite party.  Complainant did not sustain any loss as alleged in the complaint.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.

 

According to third opposite party, second opposite party is insured with all vehicles kept in their yard as per the policy conditions.  But this third opposite party is not aware about the vehicle of complainant purportedly entrusted to second opposite party for repairing.  This respondent was not intimated from the complainant or other opposite parties about the accident of the vehicle and entrusted the vehicle for repairing to second opposite party.  The policy taken by second opposite party from third opposite party is for a limited purpose with regard to the vehicles kept in their yard.  Also, this third opposite party was not intimated about the loss of the vehicle while it was kept under the possession of second opposite party.  There is no proof whether the vehicle was in total loss due to flood.  If any damage is caused to the vehicle, it is due to the accident only.  No survey report is submitted by complainant with regard to the total loss due to the flood.  Hence, this third opposite party  is not liable to pay any amount to complainant as his claim.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of this third  opposite  party.  Hence, this  complaint  may  be  dismissed  with cost of this

                                                                                                       (Cont......4)

 

-4-

 

opposite party.  Complainant has produced 6 documents.  There were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P6.  No oral evidence adduced by complainant.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 have filed detailed written version.  Third opposite party has produced copies of vouchers relating to payment.  There were marked as Ext.R1 series 3 in numbers.  No other evidence tendered by these opposite parties.  No notes were filed by parties.  No arguments were addressed by opposite parties either.  We have heard the counsel for complainant.

 

The points which arise for consideration are

 

(1)  Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

          (3)     If so, what reliefs are entitled to complainant?

 

Point No.1 is considered.

 

 We have perused the complaint and documents produced.  This complaint was filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Even though cause of action for this complaint has arisen  at   Nadathara Signal Junction in Thrissur District as per Ext.P3, opposite parties have not filed petition for considering maintainability as a preliminary issue.  First opposite party has submitted in their written version that it has no branch office within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Forum, and therefore this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint.  But, this opposite party has not submitted before this Forum to hear maintainability as a preliminary issue.  Opposite parties also have not raised this maintainability issue  at any time.  Moreover, none of these opposite parties have taken any steps to consider this jurisdictional issue and decide as preliminary.  Therefore, the case was posted for evidence.  We are of the considered view that all opposite parties have submitted to the jurisdiction of this  Forum,  because, opposite parties neither raised issue of territorial jurisdiction as preliminary nor objected for adduced evidence.  Thereafter evidence was adduced by complainant.  Hence, this Commission decides to dispose the complaint on merits.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

                                                                                                       (Cont......5)

 

-5-

Point No.2 and 3 are considered together

 

We have perused the exhibits.  As per Ext.P2, it is seen that the vehicle was insured with first opposite party from 07/12/2017 to 06/12/2018 and complainant was the insured person in this policy.  The accident was happened on 17/05/2018.  It is proved as per Ext.P3.  This is within the period of insurance.  Hence claim can be covered on this vehicle's policy.  First opposite party submitted that complainant has sold this vehicle to another person and so he has no insurable interest on this vehicle.  But, no evidence tendered to prove this contention by this opposite party.  Also, any other evidence was not adduced.  This opposite party had an insurance contract with complainant for the alleged vehicle as on the date of accident.  Therefore first opposite party cannot repudiated the claim of complainant.  We are of the considered view that repudiating the claim by this opposite parties is deficiency in service on the part of them.  Hence this opposite party is liable to settle the claim of complainant. 

 

Due to damages sustained in an accident, this vehicle was under the possession of second opposite party for repairing.   Unfortunately, the vehicle was damaged in flood water also.  Therefore, complainant subsequently claimed for the total loss of the vehicle.  But, it was also repudiated.  We have perused Ext.R1 series 3 in numbers which were produced by third opposite party.  These are copies of settlement vouchers relating to payment.  As per these documents, second opposite party has received Rs.9,500,000/- for customer vehicle and spares covered under the policy affected by loss/damage.  As per Ext.P4, complainant's vehicle is insured with policy No.1006001118P103961576 under standard file and special peril policy.  It is found that third opposite party has settled the claim under this policy.  After receiving the claim amount from third opposite party, second opposite party has not disbursed such amount to complainant.  This is service deficiency on the part of them.  Hence, second opposite party is liable to settle the claim of complainant.  Accordingly, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of third opposite party.

 

We are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to get insurance claim from first and second opposite parties and also compensation for service deficiency.  Hence, complaint is allowed in part as hereunder:-

                                                                                                        (Cont......6)

 

-6-

 

Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.3,40,745/- the value of the vehicle as total loss to the complainant.  Also, both opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to complainant within a period of one month from the date of copy of receipt of the order, failing which the amount except cost of litigation shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of this order, till its realisation.

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the 22^nd day of  September 2022.

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                             SMT.ASAMOL P.,  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                  SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                            SRI.AMPADY K.S.,   MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                      (Cont......7)

-7-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 – Copy of Certificate of registration

Ext.P2 – Reliance Private car package policies – certificate cum policy schedule.

Ext.P3 – First Information Report

Ext.P4 – G mail request to settle the claim as total loss under vehicle's policy.

Ext.P5 – G mail  letter. KL 06-G-0101 Flood vehicle.

Ext.P6 – Letter from Reliance General Insurance dated 19/10/2018.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 Series - Copies of vouchers relating to payment. 

 

 

 

                                                                                      Forwarded by Order

 

  

                                                                                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR