IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 17th day of April, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 183/2011 (Filed on 24.08.2011)
Between:
Shiju. H.,
Sheeja Manzil,
Vettippuram, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Sunitha. K.K.) … Complainant.
And:
1. Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Kochi.
2. Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties
(By Adv. K. Saileshkumar)
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant is the registered owner of a 2005 model Maruti Alto car bearing registration No. KL-03N-6706, which is in the possession and ownership of the complainant. On 25.08.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident at Kilimanoor-Kottarakkara road. By this accident, vehicle was totally damaged. The Chadayamangalam Police also registered a case for the said accident.
3. At the time of the accident, the said vehicle was driven by his friend one Jacob Mathew. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No. 2213402311000463 and the policy was valid on the date of accident. After the accident, complainant repaired the vehicle and for that he spent `1,50,000. Complainant submitted the claim form before the opposite parties, but they rejected the claim stating that there is violation of policy conditions. The act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss, mental agony and other inconvenience to the complainant. Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 1,50,000 with its interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the opposite parties.
4. The opposite parties filed their version and contended that the allegations leveled against the opposite parties are not correct and the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite parties admitted that they had issued a policy to vehicle No.KL-03N-6706 as a private car. The allegation that the above said vehicle met with an accident as alleged in the complaint is not directly known to the opposite parties. The averment that, at the time of accident, one Mr. Jacob Mathew a friend of the complainant was driving the vehicle is false. In the claim form submitted by the complainant he had stated that one Shiju was driving the car. Chadayamangalam Police registered a Crime as Crime No. 1302/2010 and charge sheeted against Jacob Mathew. From this it is clear that complainant is suppressing material facts.
5. From the investigation of opposite parties, it is revealed that the above said vehicle was registered as a private car, but it is used for commercial purpose i.e. for hire, in violation of the policy condition. Stating the above said facts, opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant.
6. On the basis of these facts, the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant and the same was intimated to him. Hence the opposite parties are not liable to the complainant and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
8. The evidence of this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 and Exts. B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, both sides filed their argument notes and they were heard.
9. The Point: The complainant filed this complaint for getting insurance claim of ` 1,50,000 from the opposite parties for the damage sustained to the car bearing registration No. KL-03N/6706 which was insured with the opposite parties. But opposite parties repudiated the complainant’s claim for ` 1,50,000. According to the complainant, the reason for the said repudiation is baseless and illegal and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant.
10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 7 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A7. Ext. A1 is the photographs of the complainant’s damaged vehicle. Ext. A2 is the cash bill dated 01.08.2011 for ` 1,28,750 issued by Drams Autos, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. Ext. A3 is the repudiation letter dated 21.04.2011 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext. A4 is the copy of insurance policy certificate. Ext. A5 is the copy of driving licence of Jacob Mathew. Ext. A6 is the copy of the AMVI’s inspection report of vehicle in question. Ext. A7 is the copy of First Information Report-cum-First Information Statement in Crime No. 1302/2010 of Chadayamangalam Police Station.
11. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the repudiation is genuine and legal. According to the opposite parties, the first opposite party issued an insurance policy to the complainant’s vehicle bearing registration No.KL-03N/6706 as a private vehicle. At the time of the accident, the car was being driven on hire as a rent a car. So the complainant violated the policy condition and the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation.
12. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the second opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the second opposite party was examined as DW1. Two documents were also marked as Exts. B1 and B2 through PW1 from the opposite parties’ side. Ext. B1 is the motor claim form submitted by the complainant. Ext. B2 is the final report in Crime No. 1302/2010 of Chadayamangalam Police.
13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the damages of the vehicle and the validity of the policy. The dispute raised by the opposite parties is that the car was being driven on hire as rent a car and the complainant is not the owner in possession of the vehicle on the date of accident which are outside the scope of insurance policy conditions and hence the complainant is not entitled to get the policy benefits.
14. But on a perusal of Ext. A1 policy certificate and Ext. A6 AMVI report, the registered owner and the policy holder is the complainant. Ext. B2 final report shows that the vehicle was driven by one Jacob Mathew at the time of the accident and as per Ext. A5 driving licence, the person who had driven the vehicle at the time of the accident is having a valid driving licence. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant’s car was using as a rent a car at the time of the accident. In order to substantiate this contention, opposite parties are relying the difference in the name of the driver shown in Ext. B2. This difference alone is not sufficient to accept the contentions of the opposite parties, as the opposite parties have not adduced any other cogent evidence to prove that the car was running as a rent a car at the time of the accident. At the same time, certain answers of PW1 in his cross examination shows certain doubts in favour of the opposite parties’ contentions. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW1 is as follows: “t]meokv kvtäj\n \n¶pw ImÀ Pmay-¯n hm§n-bXv Fsâ kplr-¯m-Wv. Bcm-sW¶v hyà-ambn Adn-bnÔ. …………-Rm³ hml\w FSp-¡m³ authorization \ÂIn-bn-cp-¶p. Unnikrishnan-sâ t]cn-em-bn-cp-¶p. Snbmsâ ]qÀ®-amb taÂhn-emkw HmÀ½-bn-Ã…………Ext.B2 bill \ÂInb workshop DS-asb F\n-¡-dn-bnÔ. The above statements in the deposition of the complainant cannot be accepted from an owner of a vehicle claiming damages from opposite parties. The above said deposition casts certain doubts in the bonafides of the complainant. At the same time, opposite parties failed to prove their allegations with any cogent evidence. So the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties cannot be justified.
15. Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is not entitled to get the entire amount claimed by him for the repairs of the vehicle as the complainant had suppressed certain facts. Based on the above said findings and observations and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010 CJ 544 SC, we are of the view that this complaint can be allowed partly on non-standard basis.
16. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of ` 75,000 (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) to the complainant within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the above said amount with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount. In the nature and circumstances of the case, no order for cost and compensation.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of April, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Shiju. H.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photographs of the complainant’s vehicle.
A2 : Cash bill dated 01.08.2011 for Rs. 1,28,750 issued by
Dreams Autos, Pathanamthitta to the complainant.
A3 : Copy of repudiation letter dated 21.04.2011 sent by the
opposite parties to the complainant.
A4 : Copy of insurance policy certificate.
A5 : Copy of driving licence of Jacob Mathew.
A6 : Copy of the AMVI’s inspection report.
A7 : Copy of First Information Report-cum-First Information
Statement in Crime No. 1302/2010 of Chadayamangalam
Police Station.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Linu George.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Motor claim form.
B2 : Final report in Crime No. 1302/2010 by
Chadayamangalam Police Station.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Shiju. H., Sheeja Manzil, Vettippuram, Pathanamthitta.
(2) Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kochi.
(3) Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
