IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 18th day of July, 2018
Filed on 20.11.2013
Present
1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim , BA,LLM (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.354/2013
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
1. Sri.Sajikumar M/s Bajaj Alliance General
S/o Peethambaran Insurance Company Ltd.
Saji Mandiram, Ullagattukadavu 3rd Floor finance tower,
Kadasserry, Poomkulam P.O., Kaloor,
Pathanapuram. Kochi-682017
Now residing at,
Kalathil House,
Komana,
Ambalappuzha P.O.,
Alappuzha.
ORDER
SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM.B.A.LLM (PRESIDENT)
This is the consumer complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the opposite party as damages compensation and interest sustained by the Rehno Car during the Road Traffic Accident.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
On 20/12/2012 at about 3 P.M Rehno car bearing Reg.No. KL.25A-30 collided with KSRTC bus bearig Reg.No.KL.15-5565(RT 387) at Pazhayangadi - Purakkad in the Kollam – Alappuzha Highway. Due to the hit by the KSRTC Bus the said car belongs to the complainant sustained heavy damage to the tune of Rs. 4,27,548/- due to the said accident the cusin of the complainant by name Abhilash who was a passenger of the car died and other passengers who are also the relatives of the complainant sustained injuries. Ambalappuzha police registered crime No. 1323/12 U/s 279,337,338 and 304(A) IPC against the driver of the KSRTC bus. The said car was insured with the opposite party insurance company wide policy No. OG-13-1601-1801 – 00000089 and the said policy was valid as on date of accident. On the very next day of the accident the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the accident and there after the authorized valuator of the opposite party’s visited the place and inspected the damaged vehicle and also sent the vehicle damaged car to the Nirmala Automobiles Thiruvanathapuram which is the authorized service centre for repairing the vehicle. The passengers of the vehicle at the time of accident was the family members and close relatives of the complainant. But unfortunately the opposite party denied the claim by alleging that at the time of accident the vehicle was used for Hire and reward purpose. The above vehicle was used only for the private purpose of travelling family members of the insured and the said vehicle was absolutely necessary for the said purpose The petitioner immediately ie. on the very next day of this accident informed the opposite party about the accident. The opposite party’s valuator visited the place of occurrence and inspected the damaged vehicle. Then he send the damaged vehicle to the above said Nirmala Automobiles, Thiruvanathapuram.
2. Opposite party resisted the case by raising the following contentions:-
The opposite party’s first contention is that, the policy issued was “Private car or Package Policy “The 2nd contention is that the complainant has informed the opposite party about said accident after a long delay of 19 days and thereby violated policy condition No.1. The 3rd contention of the opposite party is that at the time of the accident the above vehicle was used for “Hire and Reward” purpose. Hence the claim is not sustainable.
3. Points for the consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
3. Reliefs and costs.
4. Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 documents. Evidence on the side of the opposite party consists of the oral evidence of RW1 and RW2, Ext.B1 to B8 documents.
5. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party have filed notes of argument.
Point No.1 & 2
For avoiding repetition discussion of materials these points are considered together. Admittedly Rhino Car, No.KL-25-A-30 belongs to the complainant met with a road traffic accident on 20-12-2012 one Abhilash a close relation of the complainant and few others sustained injury and the said Abhilash succumbed to the injuries. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party, party insurance company and policy No.OG-13-1601-1801-00000089 was issued and the same was valid as on the date of accident. The damaged vehicle was sent to the Nirmala Automobiles, Thiruvananthapuram which is the authorized service centre of the car. It is also an admitted fact that due to collision by a KSRTC bus, The car sustained damages to the tone of Rs.4,27,548/- as per the estimate by Nirmala Automobile Pvt.Ltd. However the opposite party had rejected the claim raised by the complainant on several grounds. The opposite party would contented that the insured car was registered as the private vehicle it is clear from Ext.A1 documents and the evade from paying additional premium in respect of a transport vehicle it was registered as the private vehicle but complainant had suppressed the above fact and taken the Ext.B7 policy from the opposite party. It is further contended by the opposite party that the complaint has intimated to the opposite party regarding the accident only on 18-01-2013 through the opposite party call centre. Hence there is a long delay of 19 days inviolation of the conditions of the Ext.B7 policy and thereby curtailed the valuable right of the opposite party to conduct spot investigation and survey. It is contended that the vehicle was altered and tampered by the complainant before intimating the fact of accident to the opposite party. It is also contended that on the basis of Ext.B8 survey report, the opposite party found that the insured vehicle was hired by one Sri.Devadas which was for reward and hence the claim is not sustainable. It is clear from the oral evidence of PW1 that complainant has not complied with the terms of Ext.B7 policy which would stipulate that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage. But even according to PW1 he has intimated over phone and no written notice has been given to the opposite party, insurance company. Though PW1 would claim that on the date of accident he has intimated the matter and the insurance company has sent a surveyor and got assessed the damages but Ext.B7 survey report would falsifies the above complaint. Accordingly Ext.B1 claim is seen submitted on 19-03-2013 and thereafter the insurance company has deputed RW2 surveyor who filed Ext.B5 report Ext.B2 call details also would falsify the claim of the complaint that he has intimate the insurance company regarding the accident on the very next day that is on 21-12-2012. In the light of Ext.B1,B2 and B7 documents it is clear that there is
inordinate delay in intimating the matter to the insurance company and hence there is gross violation of condition No.1 in B7 policy.
7. Clause No.3 of Ext.B3 insurance policy would state that the insurance company shall not be liable if the vehicle is used otherwise than in accordance with the limitations of use. The limitation to use the vehicle is explained in the policy schedule contained in the first page of Ext.B7 policy. It is clear from Ext.B7 policy that the vehicle was used on hire or for reward, or for carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage) the insurance company is not liable. In view of the oral evidence of RW1 & RW2 coupled with Ext.B8 investigation report it is clear that the above vehicle was used for hire and reward at the time of accident. It is seen from the Ext.B8 documents that the investigator personally met with the persons who were travelling in the insured vehicle at the time of accident and recorded their statements. Sri.Devadas has given signed statements before the investigator to the effect that he has hire insured vehicle at the time of accident he was using the same on hire. In view of the materials available on record it is clear that insured vehicle was used for hire and reward at the time of alleged accident. In the circumstance it is clear that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of Ext.B7 insured policy. Therefore non-payment of the insurance claim by the opposite party is justifiable and same cannot be treated as deficiency in services on the part of the insurance company. It is well settled that insurance policy is an Ubariame-fidea contract and the same is to be interpret in the strict sense and if any conditions of the insurance policy is violated, the insured is not entitled to get the policy benefit. As the materials available on record including the oral evidence PW1 &PW2 Ext.B1 to B7 documents would well
establish that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of Ext.B7 policy the complainant is not entitle to get the benefit of the policy. The points answered against the complainant.
In the result complaint stands dismissed. In view of the facts parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 18th day of July, 2018.
Sd/-Sri.E.M.MuhammedIbrahim (President):
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sajikumar.P (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Registration Certificate
Ext.A2 - Policy Certificate
Ext.A3 - FIR
Ext.A4 - Estimate document
Ext.A5 - Letter dated, 15-02-2013
Ext.A6 - Letter dated, 22-02-2013
Ext.A7 - Legal notice dated, 19-03-2013
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Rinu.S. Aswan (Witness)
RW2 - Vinod. V (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Claim Form
Ext.B2 - Claim Intimation
Ext.B3 - Letter dated 25-12-2012
Ext.B4 - Registered Letters, dated 15-02-2013 and 25-02-2013
Ext.B5 - Copy of Final Survey Report
Ext.B6 - Letter dated 08-02-2013
Ext.B7 - Copy of the Insurance policy
Ext.B8 - Investigation Report – OD Claim
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
