aIN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Wednesday  the 31^st day of August, 2011

Filed on 16.10.2007

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.199/2007

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite Parties:-

1.Habeeba Jaleel.                                                         1.  National Insurance Co: Ltd

W/o Abdu Jaleel, 8/494                                                     Banglore. DO-1. 3^rd Floor

Kannittachirayil House                                           Unity Building Annexe-72

Avalookkunnu. P.O                                                           Mission Road, Banglore

Punnamada, Alappuzha                                          Pin-560 027                                                                                                                                              (Adv. T.S.Suresh, Alappuzha)         

            2.Abdul Jaleel                                                               2.  M/s TATA Motor Finance Ltd

                S/o Hameed Kunju                                                        Eranakulam Branch

                Kannittachirayil House                                                  (Adv. P.Fazil, Alappuzha)    

                Avalookkunnu .P.O

                 Punnamada, Alappuzha                                           

            (Adv.P.Roy, Alappuzha)

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

              1.   The complainants’ case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainants are husband and wife. The 1st complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle TATA Indica DLE Car bearing No.KL.4 M-7344, purchased from the 2^nd opposite party to be used as a taxi to eke out a livelihood for them. The complainant purchased the said vehicle on the inducement and tempting allurements of the 2^nd opposite party. At the time of purchase the 2^nd opposite party insisted the complainants to avail the insurance policy from the 1st opposite party. The complainants yielding to the 2^nd opposite party  pressing obtained the policy from the 1st opposite party. On 30^th August 2005, the said vehicle while coming back after a private trip accidentally overturned to sustain heavy damage to the vehicle in attempt to salvage a rash cyclist from being knocked by the car. The complainants’ car was, being driven by one Mr. Manoj P. Binu. The factum of accident was duly intimated to the Mannar police station and to the 2^nd opposite party. Pursuant to which, the material vehicle was taken to the Focus  Motors, Kottayam for repair. The surveyor attached to the lst  opposite party inspected that  vehicle in the work shop and drew up a report as to the damage of the vehicle. The  surveyor  collected the material documents as to the policy claim from the complainants, yet declined to disburse the policy amount duly . After prolonged waiting, the complainants  contacted the 1^st  opposite party repeatedly for the claim amount in vain. In the meantime, the repair work of the vehicle was over, but the complainants failed to take delivery of the vehicle down to financial constraints.  On over again being approached,  the 1^st  0pposite party  instead of the claim being honored repudiated the same citing the reason  that in the GD entry, the driver was shown as Binu, but by the claim form the vehicle was driven  by Manoj.  At the material time, Manoj, was not holding a valid license. Consequently, the complainants sent the driving license of Manoj.p. Binu and the certificate showing  the driver Manoj and Binu are one and the same person. Notwithstanding  this the, opposite party was reluctant to disburse the  ’claim amount to the complainant. Meanwhile the complainants  were  constrained to take  delivery of the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party’s  work shop on payment of the repairing charges of Rs.138,246/-(Rupees One lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred  and forty six only) . The 2^nd opposite part who very well knows the complainants’ miserable predicament, issued lawyer notice demanding huge amount  against Loan repayment installments. The 1^st opposite party who is liable to pay out the claim amount  refused to do so. The  2^nd opposite party was insensitive and negligent.  There is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainants sustained humiliation  and mental agony.  Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum the part of the opposite parties. The complainants sustained humiliation and mental agony . Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum  for compensation and relief.

          2.    On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed separate versions the Ist opposite party  contends that the driver of the vehicle has no valid badge to drive the vehicle at the material time.  The badge issued to the driver is not accordance with Rule 6 of Kerala Motor vehicle Rules.  More over in the GD extract the driver of the vehicle is Binu and in the claim form K.J.Manoj is the driver, the Ist opposite party contends.  According to the 2nd opposite party, the complainants have not raised  any  allegations  towards the  2^nd  opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service.  The complaint is only  to be dismissed, both the opposite parties vehemently argue.

           3. The complainant  evidence consists of the testimony  of the  Ist complainant  as Pw1, and the documents Exbt A1 to A14 were marked.  On the side of the  Ist opposite party  Asst. Manager was examined as Rw1 and the documents Exbts B1 to B2 were marked.  The  Joint  RTO was examined as CWI and documents was  marked as Ext.XI.

             4.   Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up for

        consideration are:-

             (1) Whether the driver of the vehicle carries a valid license at the material time of the

              accident?

           (2) If Binu and Manoj are one and the same person?

                       (3) Whether the complainant is entitled to  relief

          5. At the first blush itself, it appears that the 1^st  opposite party has not denied or disputed either the accident or the validity of the insurance policy. What are forcefully challenged by the Ist  opposite party are the identity of the person who drove the vehicle and the validity of his license. According to the 1^st  opposite party, as per GD extract the vehicle was driven by one Mr. Binu and in the claim form the name of the driver is stated to have been Manoj. The other serious contention raised by the said opposite party is that the said driver has no valid badge at the material time of the accident, the same was not issued in line with the concerned rules, the Ist  opposite party alleges. Keeping alive in mind, the said contentions we effected a searching survey of the materials placed on record by the parties. We perused the pleadings, proof affidavits, arguments and other materials placed on record by the parties. Apparently, Exbt A6 the certificate issued by the concerned Village officer indubitably unfurls that Binu and Manoj are one and the same person. Coming down to the other allegation raised by the Ist s( opposite party it appears that the driver of the vehicle was not  holding a badge at the time of the accident. It is worthwhile to notice that according to the opposite party the said badge is issued not in line with Rule 6 of Kerala Motor vehicle Rules and the same was obtained fraudulently. Going by the said contention it seems that RTO who is having the authority to do so has issued the same. Though an allegation to the effect of fraud was made by the opposite party, seemingly nothing was done to prove the same. A plain perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the Ist s( opposite party was trying to fall back on lame reasons to evade the payment of the claim on one pretext or other. It goes without saying that the complainants  sustained mental agony and loss. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainants  are entitled to relief.

       6.     In so far as the 2^nd opposite party is concerned, no serious contention appears to have been taken. Going by the context of the complainant’s contention, sometimes though some moral obligation may appear to be attributable to the 2^nd opposite party in the eye of law, the 2^nd opposite party can be held liable for the complainants’ grievance.

      7.      In view of the facts and findings herein above, the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the  Ist complainant the repairing charges of Rs.138, 246/-( Rupees One lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred and forty six only ) with 9% interest from the date of this order till its recovery. The said opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only ) as compensation and Rs.I000/-( Rupees Thousand only ) as cost of the proceedings. The said opposite party shall comply with the order within 30  days on receipt of  this order.

                        Complaint stands disposed accordingly

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of August 2011.

                                                                                                Sd/-  Sri.Jimmy Korah

Sd/-  Sri.K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                Sd/-  Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

Ext. A1            -           Bill of opposite party to the complainant dated 24/10/2009

Evidence of the Opposite party:-  Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- sh/-     

Compared by:-