BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.520/2009
Dated this the 4th day of December 2012.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
Suresh Kumar, 28/063(19/103) Karakkunnummal House, } Complainant
Mavoor Road, Kave Bus stop, Kozhikode-17. }
(Rep.by Adv.T.K.Shibu, Calicut) }
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, 2nd Floor, } Opposite party.
K.P.Vallon Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin-682020. }
(Rep.by Adv.Thomas Mathew, Calicut) }
ORDER
By G. Yadunadhan, President:
The petition was filed on 18-12-2009. The complainant’s case is that he is the owner of the car bearing Registration No. KL-11-AD-4331 which has been insured with the opposite party as per Policy No. 2201792338002455 for the period from 28-7-2009 to 27-10-2010 remitting a premium of Rs.11,898/-. The vehicle was taken delivery from the company on 28-7-2009, the road tax of the vehicle was paid on 28-7-2009 and registration No. KL11-AD 4331 was allotted on 28-7-2009. The complainant had filed application for a permit for using the vehicle as a tourist taxi and the process in the matter was going on in the R.T.O. Office, Kozhikode. While so when the car was being taken back after writing the number plate in Yellow back ground at about 10.30 A.M. on 23-8-2009, the vehicle happened to fall in to the drainage at Jafarkhan colony, Calicut and sustained damages. The accident was informed to the opposite party and the vehicle got repaired from Focus Motors, Calicut work shop and the total cost of repair came to Rs.37,225/-. Complainant had submitted the claim petition before the opposite party, they rejected the claim stating that there is no fitness and permit Process for issuing permit was going on in the office of the Regional Transport Officer. The opposite party rejected the claim petition on unreasonable grounds. This act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service, whereby the complainant sustained huge loss suffered to the complainant. Therefore complainant is entitled to get the repair charge along with compensation.
The opposite party after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version stating stat the complainant is not a consumer. Insurance is admitted and the rejection of claim also admitted. The vehicle was used as a taxi without the permit and fitness certificate. The vehicle was taken delivery as a taxi on 28-7-2009 and the accident occurred on 23-9-2009 after almost one month. Since the vehicle had no permit and fitness certificate the claim was repudiated as per terms and condition of the policy. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs,.37,225/- as repair charges and Rs.25000/- as compensation. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration (1) Whether any deficiency on the part of opposite party? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation, if so what is the relief and costs?
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A9 were marked. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 was marked.
On perusal of Ext.A1 it is the tax invoice, purchase is admitted. No dispute regarding the policy. The only dispute is regarding no fitness certificate and permit in favour of the complainant. According to the complainant, he applied for fitness certificate and permit but some inconvenience of the authority it was not received. Being a taxi vehicle both documents are compulsorily possessed by the complainant himself. According to the opposite party no dispute regarding the policy but violation of policy condition. Since there is a violation of policy condition complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. 2011 NC in Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Vs Valsa George and Others. It followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Angad Kol and Others, Prabhu Lal, Kusum Raj and Chandanmall Jain and Another. This is the settled position that in the absence of permit and fitness certificate, Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss sustained by the owner due to the accident. This being the settled position of law complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 4th day of December 2012.
Date of filing:18.12.2009.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.True copy of Tax invoice of vehicle dtd.27/07/2009 for Rs.3,13,861/-.
A2.True copy of Vehicle Delivery Acknowledgement Note dtd.28/07/09.
A3. Vehicle package policy certificate cum policy schedule issued by Reliance General
Insurance dtd.28/07/2009.(True copy)
A4. True copy of Registration certificate issued by RTO, Kozhikode. Dtd.28/07/2009.
A5.True copy of bill No.4980 of workshop No.7/273 Modern stop, Kolathara, Kozhikode
dtd.16.09.2009 for Rs.17,648/-.
A6.True copy of bill No.B.4980 of workshop No.7/273 Modern shop, Kolathara, Kozhikode for Rs.19,577/- dtd.16.09.2009.
A7.Authorized signatory letter issued by Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.
A8. True copy of contract carriage permit issued by Motor vehicle Department, Govt. of
Kerala dtd.03/10/2009.
A9.Photocopy of Registration certificate dtd.28/07/2009..
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Photocopy of policy certificate cum Policy schedule with accident photos and
survey report.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Suresh Kumar(Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. Sreejith Claim Assessor, Reliance General Insurance, 2nd Floor, Citadel Arcade
Opp.Tagore Centenary Hall, Calicut.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
