DATE OF FILING :17/01/17
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of May 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 12/17
Between
Complainant : Maheswary R., W/o S. Mani,
Palliveedu, Puliyanmala P.O.,
Vandanmedu, Idukki.
(By Adv: P.A.Suhas)
And
Opposite Party : 1 . Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
1st and 2nd Floor, Vishnu Building,
K.P. Vallon Road, Kadavanthara
(By Adv.K.Pradeepkumar)
2 . Muthoot Motors, Thannickal Buildings,
Near KSRTC Sub Dippo, Kattappana
3 . Muthoot Motors,
The Grande, 35/177A Near KSEB,
Ernakulam, Palarivattam,
Cochin - 25
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
Complainant purchased a Honda Activa two wheeler from the third opposite party and duly registered it as KL/69/9869 and insured with the first opposite party, insurance company on 04/02/2016. At the time of purchase of the vehicle the agent of the first opposite party was present in the third opposite party's showroom and the second and third opposite parties carried out all the documentations for insuring the vehicle.
At the time of purchase of the vehicle complainant paid Rs.34,900/- to the second opposite party on 02/02/16 and she availed finance for the balance amount @ Rs.1830/- for 24 months.
(Cont....2)
-2-
While so, the vehicle met with an accident on 30/05/16 at Puttady and the children and husband of the complainant suffered serious injuries and the vehicle was totally damaged. Immediately the matter was intimated to the Vandanmedu Police Station and the first opposite party, the insurance company. The police registered a case against the offending Maruthi car. Thereafter the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the second opposite party and approached the first opposite party insurance company and lodged insurance claim. Since, the opposite party has not cared to allow the claim, the complainant issued legal notices to the opposite parties. Even after receipt of notice, opposite parties has not turned up to honour the claim of the complainant. Hence alleging deficiency, complainant approached this Forum and filed this complaint for getting insurance claim of the totally damaged vehicle and other consequent reliefs.
Upon notice the first opposite party entered appearance and filed reply version. Even after acceptance of notice from this Forum the second and third opposite parties not turned up to appear before this Forum and contest the matter. Hence the second and third opposite parties are set ex parte.
In their version the first opposite party contented that the complainant has no cause of action against this opposite party and the first opposite party denied the insurance of vehicle No.KL/69/9869 on the alleged date of the accident. The opposite parties further contented that they have no liability to change the damaged vehicle and furnish new vehicle, and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from them.
Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 were marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of RC book, Ext.P2 is the copy of insurance policy, Ext.P3 is the copy of receipt dated 02/02/16, Ext.P4 is the copy of legal notice, postal receipt and AD card and Ext.P5 is the case records of crime No.265/16 of Vandanmedu police Station.
From the defence side no oral or documentary evidence is produced.
Heard both sides,
(Cont....3)
-3-
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The Point:- We have examined the entire materials on record and given a thoughtful consideration for the arguments advanced before us.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a vehicle from the second opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.34,900/- on 02/02/16 and registered it in his name as KL/69/9860 and as per Ext.P1 registration particulars it was registered on 22/02/16. As per the record the chasis number of the vehicle is ME4JF 505 AGT 045765, and engine number is JF 50 ET 3045888. The vehicle was duly registered with the first opposite party insurance company and as per Ext.P2, the insurance policy is valid from 4th February 2016 to 3rd February 2017. By perusing Ext.P5, it is seen that the vehicle was met with an accident on 30/05/16 at Puttady and the passenger of the vehicle suffered serious injuries, and the vehicle fully damaged. For this purpose the Vandanmedu Police registered a case as crime No. 265/16 and prepared vehicle mahazar. As per the vehicle mahazar, the vehicle discussed above is fully damaged. As per the version of the complainant immediately after the accident and after police enquiry, she entrusted the vehicle to the second opposite party. On perusal of Ext.P2, it is clear that at the time of taking insurance policy on 04/02/16 the vehicle was not permanently registered and hence no registration number is stated in the insurance policy. At the same time all other details including chasis number and engine number of the vehicle discussed above is stated. By perusing Ext.P1 registration certificate, Ext.P2 insurance policy and vehicle Mahazar of Ext.P5, the engine number and chasis number of the vehicle is stated in these documents are one and same. As per the reply version, the first opposite party denied the policy on the reason that, the vehicle having registration No.KL/69/9869 was not registered with them. Actually the registration number of the vehicle is KL/69/9860, in the complaint it is mistakenly entered as KL/69/9869. Only on this reason opposite party denied the policy of the vehicle. But the opposite party is legally bound to verify the engine number and chasis number of the vehicle which is stated in the complaint. At the time of evidence also opposite party miserably failed to peruse the Ext.P2 insurance certificate, the Ext.P1 registration particulars and Ext.P5 police records.
(Cont....4)
-4-
Without carrying out an enquiry in this matter, even after the receipt of the lawyer notice, opposite party neglected the prayer of the complainant and straight way denied the issuance of policy on some lame excuses.
At the same time complainant has not taken any steps to clear the mistake in the registration number of the vehicle as well as not produced any expert report to convince the Forum that the alleged vehicle is totally damaged in the accident as they pleaded.
On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that even though the complainant committed a clerical mistake in the registration number of the vehicle, opposite parties can honour the claim of the vehicle with due process, considering the engine number, chasis number and ownership of the vehicle .
But the opposite party failed to do so and committed serious deficiency in service in denying the policy with some flimsy grounds.
Hence complaint is partly allowed. The Forum directs the opposite parties to consider the claim of the complainant and allow the claim after conducting sufficient enquiry within one month, complainant is directed to co-operate with the opposite parties by producing sufficient records.
The complainant decided accordingly. No order to cost.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2018.
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
(Cont....5)
-5-
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Maheswary R.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The copy of RC book
Ext.P2 - The copy of insurance policy
Ext.P3 - The copy of receipt dated 02/02/16
Ext.P4 - The copy of legal notice, postal receipt and AD card
Ext.P5 - The case records of crime No.265/16 of Vandanmedu police Station.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
