Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/62

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ,THE FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.R RAJENDRAN - Opp.Party(s)

SREEVARAHAM G SATHEESH

22 Jan 2016

ORDER

                                                                   KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.62/14

JUDGMENT DATED :22/01/2016

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.300/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kannur, order dated : 19.12.2013)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          The Divisional Manager,

          The Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          Sky Tower, Mavoor Road Junction,

          Calicut – 673001.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

 

                                                                   Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. P.R. Rajanandanan,

          Sreenandanam, Kodolipparam,

          Pattannur. P.O., Edayannur,

          Thalassery, Kannur – 670595

 

2. German Motors,

          Authorised Dealers of Chevrolet

          Sales India Pvt. Ltd.,

          B.P. VI – 14 A, Valapattanam P.O.,

          Kannur – 670010.

         

          (By Adv: Sri. Vazhuthacadu Narendran for R1)

 

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant was the second opposite party in CC.No.300/2011 in the CDRF, Kannur. The first respondent was the complainant. He was the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 58 E 9142. It is alleged in the compliant that the vehicle was insured with the appellant for the period from 06.05.2011 to 05.05,.2012. The vehicle met with an accident on 04.06.2011. At that time the complainant had applied for tourist permit. The claim submitted before the appellant was repudiated for the reason that the vehicle was not having valid permit. The repudiation was not justified and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

          2.      Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed separate version. Really the second opposite party, the appellant’s contentions only are relevant. They disputed the alleged damage to the vehicle and contended that the complainant had violated policy conditions. Hence repudiation of the claim was justified and there was no deficiency in service on their part.

          3. Before the consumer forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite parties. As per the impugned order the consumer forum directed the second opposite party appellant to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as cost of litigation. The second opposite party insurer is challenging the correctness of the order.

          4.      At the outset it may be mentioned that Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are formed under section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both. It is true that section 165 does not cover a claim for damage to own property. But the section does not exclude such claims either.   At any rate, the non mention of own damage claim by section 165 does not so ipso facto authorize a consumer forum to adjudicate upon such claims. The jurisdiction of a consumer forum is limited to see whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the insurer.

          5.      It is pertinent to mention that as against the contention that there was no damage to the vehicle, the complainant has adduced no evidence to prove the extent of damage sustained in the accident, that repairs were required to restore the vehicle to the original condition, the actual amount required for that purpose and that he had in fact spent that much amount to repair the vehicle. Ext. A13 repair order is not sufficient to establish any of the said facts. In the face of lack of evidence there is no basis for the order of the consumer forum directing payment of

Rs.3, 00,000/-  the claim amount.

          6.      As already mentioned the claim was repudiated as the vehicle did not have permit at the time of accident.   Repudiation of a claim as per the contract of insurance constitutes no deficiency in service and this was laid down by the National Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.2476/2012 as per order dated 06.02.2014, copy of which is produced at the time of arguments. The allegation in the complaint is only that on the date of accident on 04.06.2011 the complainant had applied for tourist taxi permit . Ext.A10 tourist taxi permit produced in evidence shows that permit was granted only from 25.06.2011. It clearly shows that on the date of accident on 04.06.2011, there was no valid permit for the vehicle. The consumer forum failed to consider this evidence and relying on oral evidence proceeded to find deficiency in service which was not justified. A consumer forum is not an appellate authority over each and every repudiation of contract of insurance.  The Repudiation must be such that it amounts to deficiency in service. Repudiation as per the contract of insurance on valid grounds which even as per the allegation in the complaint is true is no deficiency in service. Hence the consumer forum erred in allowing the complaint. Therefore the appeal is liable to be allowed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of CDRF, Kannur in CC.No.300/2011 dated 19.12.2013 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this appeal.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

A.RADHA            : MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

 

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.62/14

JUDGMENT DATED :22/01/2016

 

 

 

Be/