BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

 Date of filing :  19.03.2015

                                                                                         Date of Order : 30.08.2019

PRESENT:

 Shri. Cherian K. Kuraikose,                             President

 Shri. V.Ramachandran                                    Member  
 

CC.No.196/2015

Between

ORDER

V.Ramachandran,  Member

1)     A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant is the registered owner of an Innova Car bearing Registration No.KL 42 E 2468. She had insured her vehicle with the opposite party for IDV of Rs. 7,20,000/- and paid premium of Rs.15,554/-.  The policy number is 2311 2004 7691 3401 000 and is valid from 04.04.2014 to 03.04.2015.

2)     On 30.12.2014, the car met with an accident at Kakkad within the Piravam Police Station limit while one Mr. Paulose was driving the vehicle.  The complainant intimated the accident and submitted the duly filled Claim Forms. As directed by the opposite party, this vehicle was taken into M/s.Carnatioon Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Maradu, Ernakulam.  They have estimated the cost of repair charge as Rs.2,89,050/-.  Sri. Varun the surveyor of the opposite party also inspected the vehicle and estimated the cost of repair charges of the vehicle on the basis of the estimate prepared by the authorized service centre.

3)      Thereafter as per letter dated 25.02.2015 the complainant was informed that the opposite party is closing the claim as no claim since the vehicle was used at the time of accident for hire/reward.  According to the complainant, this ground for repudiation is illegal as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the damage of the car has not occurred while the car was used for hire/reward, hence this rejection of claim amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,89,050/- as the estimated loss along with Rs.1,00,000/- as damages amounting to a total of Rs.3,89,050/- with 12% interest from 25.02.2015 till realization for loss and damages sustained by the complainant due to the negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party together with Rs.50000/-  towards cost of the proceedings.

4)      The opposite party entered into appearance and filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and is to be dismissed inlimine.  The complainant has violated the legal principles and statutory obligations by using this vehicle in questions for hire and reward purpose, which is an exclusion of the private car package policy.  Since the complainant has violated this policy terms and conditions and hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as claimed.  It is contented that the opposite party has issued a private vehicle package policy for the period from 04.04.2014 to 03.04.2014 in respect of vehicle No. KL 42/E/2468.  The policy was taken as private car/package, policy suppressing the material fact that the vehicle was a transport, vehicle and evaded from payment of additional premium for transport vehicle.  The policy was taken by the complainant for a private car and suppressed the fact that the vehicle is being used for hire and reward.  Eventhough the accident took place on 30.12.2015 the fact was reported on 20.01.2015 that is long after a delay of two days.  The complainant was duty bound to intimate the opposite party about the alleged accident since then only the opposite party shall get an opportunity to conduct a spot investigation into the accident.  It is contended by the opposite party that immediately on receipt of this claim intimation, they have deputed a qualified licenced, independent investigator who submitted his report on 28.01.2015 stating that the vehicle was on hire by one Sri.Paulose Thomas.  It is contended by the opposite party that since the insured vehicle was hypothecated, even if any amount is paid that shall only be paid to whom it is hypothecated.  However no amount shall become payable to whom it is hypothecated. 

5)      The following issues are considered in the case:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay any compensation to the complainant?
3. If so, Reliefs and costs

6)      The evidence in this case consisted of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 and the documentary evidences furnished by the complainant which were marked as ExbtA1 to A7.  The opposite party adduced no oral evidence.  The documentary evidence furnished by the opposite party were marked as Exbt.B1 to B3.

7)     Issue No. (i)

        According to the complainant, the vehicle was being used by the complainant for her personal uses.  The accident occurred at the time when she was travelling in the vehicle, along with a family friend named Paulose Thomas.  The accident was intimated to the opposite party in time as that day itself and the vehicle was taken to the authorized service stations as per their direction.  On going through the documentary and oral evidences adduced by the parties, it is seen that complainant was using the vehicle for her private uses.  There is nothing in evidence to prove that the complainant was using the vehicle for hire/reward or as transport vehicle, violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policies. During cross examination, the complainant denied the delay regarding intimation.  The expert entrusted for investigations, and examinations of this vehicle, is not seen cross examined at any stage of trial of the case.

8)     Issue No. (ii)

The fact and evidences of this case, shows that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and thereby the complainant suffered loss and damages.

9)     Issue No. (iii)

          The opposite party will reprocess and damage happened to the vehicle in the light of the finding of this Forum that the opposite party failed to prove the allegation supporting the extension clause in the policy, and assuming that the opposite party has the liability under the policy to indemnify the complainant, and make appropriate payment to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the opposite party.

 10)   We further direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered due to the delayed settlement and denial of liability of policy on untenable grounds, to the detriment of the complainant/consumer.  

11)    The complainant is also found entitle to realize Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party towards the cost of the proceedings.        

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of August 2019.

                                                                                      Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Forwarded by Order

Senior Superintendent

                                                          APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:

Depositions        :

          PW1           ::        K.B.Thankamani

Date of dispatch :

          By Hand    :

          By Post      :