IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of November, 2009
Filed on 28.08.08
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.190/08
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Muhammed Kunju, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Parechirayil, Represented by its Branch Manager,
Veapuram P.O, Alappuzha.
Harippad, (By Adv.Elizabeth George)
Alappuzha.
(By Adv.Vinod Vargherse)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant is the registered owner of the passenger Autorikshaw bearing No. K1/04-T.8064. He had availed an insurance policy for the said vehicle from the opposite party. On 20th January 2007, the complainant's vehicle knocked with a car bearing No. KL/04-V.3553. In the collision the vehicle of the complainant got damaged. The passengers in the Autoriksha also sustained injury. At the material time, the aforesaid insurance was in force. The accident was duly intimated to the opposite party. A surveyor was appointed and the vehicle was examined. There after the vehicle of the complainant was got repaired in East Venice Showroom, Alappuzha. The said repair and the replacement of the damaged parts were undertaken duly in line with the instruction and approval of the surveyor. The complainant was incurred an amount of Rs.56,000/-(Rupees fifty six thousand only) for the said repair and replacement. The complainant lodged a claim for the said amount with the opposite party. Notwithstanding the concerned bill being produced and repeated requests, the opposite party is disinclined to give the amount the complainant expended to get his vehicle repaired. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum praying for compensation and other relief.
1. Notice was sent. The opposite party turned up and filed version. According to the opposite party, at the material time of accident, the complainant's vehicle was carrying four passengers as against the prescribed limitations as to this which would disentitle the complainant to the insurance amount. The accident took place consequent upon the negligence of the other vehicle. As such the complainant can obtain compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle, the opposite party submits. The vehicle was not repaired as per the direction of the opposite party. A surveyor was appointed. The damage the surveyor assessed can be got repaired with a much lesser amount the complainant claimed to have invested. The complainant vehicle was carrying more passengers than what is permitted. The opposite party is not liable to pay the compensation or any amount ought for. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party asserts.
2. On the complainant side the complainant himself was examined as PW1, and the documents Exbts. A1 to A3 were marked. Exbt A1 series is the copy of the bills, A2 is the FIR and A3 is the FIS. On the side of the opposite party, the surveyor examined as RW1 and the documents Exbts.B1 to B3 were marked. Exbt B1 is the insurance policy certificate, B2 is the surveyor’s report and B3 is the copy of the letter issued to the complainant by the opposite party repudiating his claim.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions raised by both the parties, the issues come up before us for consideration are:-
(l) Whether the complainant vehicle was carrying four passengers at the time of the accident in question?
(2) If yes, whether it would disentitle the complainant the amount he incurred for getting the vehicle repaired?
5. Concededly, the alleged accident took place on 20th January 2007. The vehicle was got repaired in East Venice Showroom as claimed by the complainant. The counsel for the parties took us through the materials placed on record. It appears that either the accident or the policy has not been disputed. The crux of the contentions arose by the opposite party is that at the material time the complainant vehicle was carrying four passengers when the permissible limit is only up to three persons. Thus there was blatant violation of law by the complainant which obviously by itself disentitled the complainant to any claim, the opposite party flagrantly argues. We meticulously went through the evidence let in by the parties. Going by the evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite party, it is manifest that the accident occurred for the negligence of both the vehicles involved in the accident. To put it more clearly, the material accident can also be a consequence of the complainant vehicle carrying more persons. What is more, even the complainant does not dispute that carrying of four passengers is against the concerned stipulations. In view of this, we are not reluctant to hold that the case of the complainant does not merit acceptance.
In view of the discussions made herein above, the complaint is dismissed. The parties are left to bear with their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2009.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Muhammed Kunju.P.A (Witness)
PW2 - C.G.Gopinathan (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Series is the copy of the bills
Ext. A2 - The FIR
Ext. A3 - The FIS
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Anshad Hussain.K.P(Witness)
Ext. B1 - The insurance policy certificate
Ext. B2 - The surveyor’s report
Ext. B3 - The copy of the letter issued to the complainant by the opposite party
repudiating his claim.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
