D.O.F. 15.07.2006 D.O.O. 02.11.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 C.C.No.167/2006 T.P. Asootty, Palakkat House, : Complainant P.O. Mambaram, Kannur (Rep. by Adv.Vivekanand P.) 1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. Regd. Office 3 Middleton street P.B. No. 4229, Kolkatta - 700071 2. The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai, Divisional Office, VIII 1st Floor, Mamaji Centre, S-7 Thiruvika Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai 600 032 : Opposite parties 3. The Regional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, Kannur (Rep. by Adv. V.K. Rajeev) O R D E R Sri. K. Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.4055/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing and an amount Rs.25000/- as compensation along with Rs.2000/- as cost of these proceedings. The facts of the case of the complainant in brief are as follows : Complainant insured his vehicle with the opposite party covering a period from 2004 to 2005 with a policy No. 501602/31/04/6319474. Complainant paid insurance premium due Rs.16,620/- for the above said period through 3rd opposite party which is the Regional Officer of opposite party 1. Opposite party 2 is the Divisional Officer of opposite party No.1 through which petitioner had got his vehicle duly insured with opposite party 1. The period of insurance got expired on midnight of 17.10.2005. On 18.04.2005 the above said vehicle accidentally hit against an electric post destroying the same causing a loss of Rs.10,055/-. Petitioners had paid the entire amount claimed by K.S.E. Board. Thereafter complainant made claim before the opposite party for reimbursement of the said amount. Opposite party 2 had issued a cheque dated 02.12.2005 for Rs.6,000/- as against a claim for Rs.10,055/- . Complainant received the cheque by way of protest and hence there is a balance of Rs.4055/-. The amount remains to be paid though contacted several time. Opposite party 3 always said excuse some or the other on all occasions. Complainant had also made several STD calls to opposite party 2 but in vain. Since all the attempts failed Lawyer notice was sent on 21.01.2006 to opposite party 2, which was replied on 28.02.2006 raising false contentions stating that opposite party is liable to pay Rs.6,000/- only by way of third party property damage. Complainant insured his vehicle for a sum of Rs.4,90,000/-. The opposite party had agreed to make good of any claims upto Rs. 7,50,000/-. So opposite parties are liable to pay the balance amount Rs.4,055/-. Non payment amounts to deficiency of service. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version jointly. The case of the opposite parties in brief is as follows : The vehicle was involved in an accident. The accident had taken place on 18.07.2004 and an electric post of the KSEB was damaged in the accident. Complainant had submitted the receipt issued from the KSEB. The opposite party had processed the claim and had reimbursed to the complainant the sum of Rs.6000/- which is the maximum limit of the liability under Section 11(ii) of the polity in respect of any claim or series of claims arising out of one event for third party property damage. The claim was settled for Rs.6000/- and a cheque for the said amount was issued to the complainant which he had received the full and final satisfaction of the claim. Hence the present claim towards balance amount of Rs.4,055/- is not maintainable. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consist of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Ext.A1 to A6 and Ext. B1 to B5. Issues 1 to 3 : Admittedly the vehicle in question met with an accident and an electric post of the KSEB was damaged. Complainant paid the amount of damage. Complainant claimed the amount already paid to KSEB Rs.10,055/- from the opposite parties. Opposite party though not reimbursed the entire amount but paid only Rs.6000/-. The case of the complainant is that he has paid Rs.10,055/- to KSEB and produced receipts before KSEB by submitting claim for reimbursing the amount. Opposite party admitted the accident but paid only Rs.6,000/-. Complainant alleges that he has received Rs.6,000/- by way of protest. The opposite party is liable to pay the balance amount Rs.4,055/- opposite party on the other hand contented that the limits of the liability of the opposite party insurance company towards the damage to the 3rd property damage is only upto Rs.6000/- and hence opposite party is not liable to pay any balance amount. The main contention of opposite party raised in version is that the maximum limit of the liability is Rs.6000/- under section 11(ii) of the policy in respect of any claim or series of claim arising out of one event for third party property claim. In the face page of Ext.A1/B1 insurance policy under the caption limits of liability it is written thus “under Section 11(ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one even : Rs.75,000/-.” In the chief affidavit filed by DW1 stated thus “….the limits of the amount of the Company’s liability under Section 11-1(ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event is upto Rs.6000/- alone”. The true copy of the insurance policy dated 18.10.2004 along with its conditions produced and marked by opposite party. The conditions in Ext.B1 under the caption “SECTION II LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES” reads thus – “1. subjected to the limits of liability as laid down in the schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle against all sums including claimant’s cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of 1. …………………. 11. damage to property caused by the use of the vehicle. Under the caption “IMT 20 REDUCTION IN THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE” reads thus : “it is hereby understood and agreed that not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy the insurers liability is limited to Rs.6,000/- for damage to property other than the property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in custody or control of the insured. In consideration of this reduction in the limit of liability a reduction in premium of Rs…………… is hereby made to the insured. Subject otherwise to the terms consideration limitations and exceptions of the policy”. It can be seen that reduction in premium amount left open blank, which the reason has not been explained anywhere. Hence it can only be considered that IMT 20 has not been made applicable to this policy. It has not also been supported by endorsement of complainant that depicts consensus ad idem. Moreover, it is an important point to find which is the policy applicable to the vehicle of the complainant. The pleading of the complainant shows that the accident had taken place on 18.04.2005. The chief affidavit filed by the complainant also adduced evidence in lieu of chief examination that the accident was on 18.04.2005 Ext.A3 also shows the date is same. If it is so the insurance covered is under the policy in Ext.B1 the period of which is from 18.10.2004 to 17.10.2005. But opposite party contented that the accident had taken place on 18.07.2004. Ext.B3 is the claim intimation Form wherein Column No.2 time and date of accident is filled as 18.07.2007 at about 6.15. Ext.B3 claim intimation dated 19.07.2004. Since the claim intimation is submitted on 19.07.2004 the date of accident shown as 18.07.2007 need not be suspected. Ext.B4 is the claim Form. Under the caption details of accident is given as follows : a) Date and Time - 18.07.2004 at about 6.15 am b) Place - Near Kannur Town Police Station In Ext.B4 the period of insurance shown in the beginning column is from 18.10.2003 to 17.10.2004. When the period of insurance shown as above it is definite Ext.B2 policy is applicable to the vehicle in question at the time of accident and not Ext.A1/B1. Moreover Ext.A5(b) receipt of payment by the complainant for Rs.10055 issued by KSEB on 23.07.2004 reveals that the accident took place in the year 2004 ie before 23.07.2004. Thus Ext.A5(b) receipt also leads to assume that the date of accident is probably on 18.07.2004. There is no doubt that Ext.B3 claim intimation and Ext.B4 the claim Form undoubtedly proves that the date of accident was on 18.07.2004. Ext.A4 also prove that insurance to the said vehicle involved in the accident, had been covered by Ext.B2 policy since the effective date of commencement of insurance for the purpose of the Act was from 18.10.2003 to 17.10.2004. In the bottom column 4th line face page of Ext.B2 insurance policy specifically written thus “Limit or the amount of the Company’s Liability under Section 11-1(ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event : UPTO Rs.6000/- . This is a case in which opposite party had paid an amount of Rs.6000/- by way of Demand Draft of which Ext.A2 true copy is produced by complainant. Complainant failed to establish that opposite party is liable to pay the balance amount. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. We are of considered view that complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint since he miserably failed to establish his case. Hence the issues 1 to 3 are found against the complainant. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Copy of the Insurance Policy dated 11.10.2005. A2. Cheque issued by the opposite party dated 02.12.2005. A3. Copy of the Lawyer Notice issued to the Opposite Party No.2. A4. Reply letter sent by the opposite party. A5. Receipt dated 21.01.2006. A6. Postal acknowledgement. Exhibits for the opposite party B1. True copy of the Insurance Policy Schedule of the vehicle along with its conditions. B2. Certificate of Insurance of the Vehilce along with its schedule of premium dated 18.10.2003. B3. Claim intimation sent by the complainant to the opposite party No.2.. B4. Claim form submitted by the complainant to the opposite party No.2. B5. Receipt issued to the complainant dated 23.07.2004. Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant Witness examined for opposite party DW1. T.A. Sankarankutty. /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
