KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.452/2009 JUDGMENT DATED 22.7.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER United India Insurance Company Ltd, Sulthan Bathery Branch, Reptd. by Dr.Mohan Shankar, -- APPELLANT Sr.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Divisional Office-1, LMS Compound, Trivandrum. (By Adv.R.Jagadish kumar) Vs. Poulose, S/0 Kuriakose, -- RESPONDENT Kallappara House, Kappikunnu, Meenangadi.P.O, Wayanad. (By Adv.Daisy J.Daniel) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.92/2008 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.56,078/- for the damages sustained to the vehicle insured with the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that the Maruthi Omni Van owned by him and having full coverage with the opposite party and having all India Tourist permit, met with an accident while playing through the state of Karnataka on 19.5.07. He has spent Rs.80,000/- for rectifying the damages to the vehicle. The claim was repudiated on the ground of permit violation which is incorrect. He has claimed Rs.80,000/- with interest at 18% and Rs.20,000/- as compensation. The opposite parties have contended that the vehicle was not having authorization as required in the permit. The authorization expired on 17.5.06. Hence, the same amounted to policy violation. The surveyor has assessed the loss after deducting depreciation at Rs.56,078/-. The opposite parties have denied liability to pay the amount. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective parties A1 to A8 and B1 to B3. It is not disputed that the vehicle met with an accident while passing through the state of Karnataka at Gundlepetta and the vehicle sustained damages. The Forum has held that the amount paid while entering the state of Karnataka ie; Rs.500/- is sufficient. The counsel for the appellant has relied on Rules 83 and 84 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which specifies that there shall be authorization apart from permit and also apart from any taxes or fees levied by the state concerned. Rule 83 specifically provides that with respect to the grant of authorization there shall be an application with an affidavit and a fee of Rs.500/- per annum in the form of a bank draft. The complainant has produced Ext.A8 authorization which is for the period from 18.10.05 to 17.5.06. In the instant case the accident has taken place on 19.5.07. Evidently, there is no authorization. Payment of Rs.500/- to the authorities of the Karnataka state at the time of the vehicle entering into the Karnatake State would not be sufficient for authorization as per Clause 2 of the said Rule. Rule 83 specifically provides that the authorization is apart from the taxes and fees if any levied by the States concerned. Hence we find that there is permit violation. The finding of the Forum below in this regard is incorrect. All the same, we find that the vehicle was having full coverage when it met with an accident and the vehicle was also having tourist permit. In the circumstances, we find that it would only be proper to settle the claim on non-standard basis. Hence, the opposite parties/respondents are directed to pay 75% of the sum assessed by the surveyor. The same would work out Rs.42,059/-. The opposite parties/respondents would make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest at 12% from today. The office will forward the copy of this order along with the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER | 
