DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  6^th day of June, 2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 14/03/2022  

                         CC/45/2022

Devadas,

S/o. Krishnan,

Manalippadamkalam,

Nenmeni, Kollengode,

Chittur, Palakkad – 678 506                                                   -                       Complainant

                  (By Adv. M/s. M.R.Manikandan & Sandya V.)

                                                                                                Vs

1. M/s.SBI GIC Ltd.,

DD Trade Tower, 3C, 3^rd Floor,

Kadavanthara Road,

Kaloor, Cochin

2. M/s.Toyota  Tsusho Insurance Broker (I) Pvt.Ltd.,

C/o.Amana Toyota – VPK Motors Pvt.Ltd.,

Mundur, Poriyani, Palakkad – 678 592          -                       Opposite parties

 (OP1 by Adv.P.Prasad

  OP2 Exparte)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Abridged pleadings are to the effect that the complainant is a beneficiary of a motor vehicle policy issued by the 1^st O.P. 2^nd O.P. acted as the agent of the 1^st O.P. During the subsistence of the policy, complainant’s car developed some repairs warranting expenditure indemnifiable under the policy issued by the O.P. But  O.P. repudiated the claim of the complainant. Aggrieved by repudiation of the claim this complaint is filed.

2. O.P.1 filed version defending repudiation on the ground that the expense was incurred for a damage of rat-bite that was pre-existing and beyond the coverage of policy period. Repudiation was made based on the report filed by a licensed surveyor engaged by the O.P. and sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

3. O.P.2 did not appear and was set ex parte.

4. The following issues were framed by this Commission post completion of pleadings:

1. Whether the damages suffered by the complainant’s vehicle were pre-existing and before the inception of the policy?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s in repudiating the claim?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs, if any?

5.(i)   Complainant failed to adduce any evidence even after granting adequate time. When the matter was taken up for orders, counsel for the complainant approached this Commission with an application as I.A. 300/2023 to re-open evidence and I.A. 301/2023 to grant permission to cross examine the O.P.s. Both I.A.s were dismissed by separate orders dated 05/06/2023.

(ii)        O.P. filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to  B5.

Issue No. A

6.         O.P. contested the case of the complainant that the damage to the car occurred during subsistence of the policy. They alleged that the cause of repudiation was that the damage was pre-existing. Repudiation was based on the report of the Surveyor.

7.         As already stated supra, the complainant has failed to file proof affidavit or mark any documents in evidence, eventhough they had made an attempt to have evidence reopened at the fag end of the case.

8.         O.P.s filed Ext. B1 to B5 documents in evidence. Documents necessary to adjudicate the issue are assessed.

Ext. B1 is the policy document. Policy coverage is for a period covering 21/10/2021 to 20/10/2022.

Ext. B2 is the claim form which shows that the damage is rat-bite caused while the car was parked at the residence of the complainant.

Ext. B3 is the final survey report. Said report is concise and inclusive of all details pertaining to the repair history of the car and based on the vehicle repair history maintained by the service centre.  Final portion of Ext. B3 report shows that the surveyor has reported that that the rat bite was mentioned prior to the policy period on 28/04/2021. Ext. B3 report being unchallenged, we conclude the same to reflect the actual transactions.

9.         Yet counsel for complainant argued vehemently for the proposition that Ext. B3 does not reflect factual scenario. He tried to pick holes in Ext. B3 documents stating that rat bites could occur at any time and that there is no evidence that the rat bite that is said to be pre-existing is the same as the one for which the claim was made. But we are only to rely on the available evidence adduced by the parties. 

10.       Relying on Ext. B3, we can come to a reasonable conclusion that the rat-bite was pre-existing. 

            Issue Nos. B & C

11.       Apropos the finding in Issue no. A, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

12.       Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed.

            Issue No. D

13.       From the available pleadings and documents adduced and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we can come to a conclusion that the complainant was fully aware of the existence of a pre-existing damage. Thereafter, he has come forward with this malicious and vexatious complaint by suppressing material facts that was within his knowledge to harass the Insurer. This conduct is nothing short of an abuse of the process of law to vex a person who was acting in accordance with their statutory and contractual duties. Such malicious conduct on the part of complainant should not go un-penalised.

14.       We hold that the contesting Opposite Party, O.P.1, is entitled to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant.

15.       Period of compliance is 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 6^th day of June, 2023.      

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                             Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

       Sd/-                                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :  Nil

 Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:    

Ext.B1 – Copy of policy schedule and policy conditions

Ext.B2 – Copy of claim form

Ext.B3 – Copy of Surveyor’s report

Ext.B4 – Copy of relevant page of service history of the car

Ext.B5 – Copy of repudiation letter

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.