KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.102/2008

JUDGMENT DATED: 31.5.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,          : APPELLANT

Divisional Office,

P.B.No.5, Court Road,

Manjeri,

Rep. by Deputy Manager,

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Divisional Office,

L.M.S. Compound,

Thiurvananthapuram.

(by Adv.R.Jagadish Kumar)

            Vs.

Sunny Thomas,                                  : RESPONDENT

Kochikkaran Veettil,

P.O.Chungathara,

Nilambuar,

Malappuram District – 679.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Co. in OP.294/03 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram.  The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15229/ with interest at 12% per annum and cost of Rs.2000/-.

          2. The case of the complainant is that the  mini lorry involved in the matter was used by him for carrying RMS mail on contract basis.  On 26.5.03 when the vehicle was garaged for painting works it caught fire by electrical short circuit.  According to the complainant it was stationed near a painting workshop adjacent to RMS office, Tirur.  It is alleged that the vehicle sustained damages to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. Surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the damages but the claim was repudiated; and he has sought for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and further Rs.10,000- and cost of Rs.2000/-

          3. It is the case of the opposite party/appellant mentioned that the complainant in the claim form itself that the  incident took place on 26.5.03 between 12 midnight and 1AM when it was parked in front of  RMS office, Tirur for the purpose of  carrying mail bags.  At the time of survey it was found that the vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate from 12.3.03.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective sides: Exts.A1 to A15, Exts.B1 to B6.

          5. The Forum has held that the opposite party has failed to prove that the incident took place when the vehicle was being used for any purpose and hence as the vehicle was lying  stationery in the garage  the repudiation is illegal.

          6. We find that in Ext.B1 intimation and Ext.B2 claim form it has been mentioned that the incident took place in front of RMS Office, Tirur. In answer to the question in column (b) of Ext.B2 ie, “ For what purpose was the vehicle being used at the time of accident; it is mentioned that the vehicle was used for carrying postal bags and was  parked in front of Tirur RMS office.  In Ext.A2  fire force report also it is mentioned that the vehicle was parked in front of RMS office for the purpose of collecting postal bags.  Ext.B6 is the certified copy of the policy ie, Goods Carrying (other than 3-WH) Public Carriers-Package Policy as per which fitness certificate is mandatory.  The counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision of National Commission in Aeroflot Soviet Airlines Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,  2007 NCJ 235 (NC)  wherein  stress has been laid on Section 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 which specifies that a transport vehicle shall not  be deemed  to be registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness etc.  We find that the policy is only with respect a commercial vehicle and without fitness certificate the vehicle cannot be treated as a commercial vehicle. Hence there is a violation of policy conditions and hence the opposite party/ appellant is not liable to indemnify the complainant. 

          7. In the result the appeal is allowed.  The order of the Forum is set aside.

          Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

ps