IN THECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

        Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

   Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member

CC No. 211/08

Thursday the 16^th  day of October 2014

Petitioner                                                :  Jose,

                                                                 S/o Varkey

                                                                 Alappattu, Kanamala PO,

                                                                 Erumely, Kottayam Dist.   

                                                                   (Adv. G.Jayasankar)

Vs

Opposite parties                                   : 1) Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd

                                                                   Commander in Chief Road, Ethiraj

                                                                      Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600008

                                                                      Rep.by its Managing Director

                                                              2) Tata AIG Co. Ltd(Branch)

                                                                   Sasthri Road, Kottayam Rptd by its

                                                                   Branch Manager.

                                                              3)   Rajesh SR.

                                                                    C/o Kotak Mahindra. 1^st floor,

                                                                   Silver Complex, Perunna PO,

                                                                    Changanachery.

                                                              4)   Kotak Mahindra,

                                                                   Prime Ltd., 4^th floor

                                                                    Thadikaran Centre,

                                                                      Palarivattom, Kochi-682 026. 

                                                                    (OP 1&2 Adv. Agi Joseph)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

          The case of the complainant filed on 13-08-2008 is as follows.

          The complainant’s vehicle Maruthi Omini Van bearing Reg.No.KL-34-1527 was insured with the opposite parties1 & 2.  The period of insurance is from 26-10-07 to 25-10-08.  The said vehicle was met with an accident on 5-11-07 and damages caused to the vehicle.  And after survey the vehicle was repaired by authorized service center Indus Motors and charged Rs.16708/- as repairing charges.  The complainant submitted claim form and other documents with 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  And they repudiated  the claim of complainant stating that in R.C it was mentioned the LPG as fuel w.e.f 2-12-06 and the said alterations to the vehicle has not endorsed in the policy.  According to the complainant the R.C has been duly endorsed the LPG as fuel w.e.f. 2-12-06.  The non-mentioning of said aspect in the policy is not a default on the part of the insured.  The act of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, in repudiation of the legally entitled claim of the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

          First and second opposite parties filed version admitting the valid insurance policy.  According to opposite parties the complainant’s vehicle was insured stating that it was fitted with a petrol engine but the complainant altered it by fixing LPG fuel and it was endorsed in the registration certificate.  According to the opposite parties General Regulation No.42 of the Indian Motor Tariff prescribes that in case of vehicle fitted with bi-fuel system such as petrol/diesel and CNG/LPG permitted by the concerned RTA, the CNG/LPG kit fitted to the vehicle is to be insured separately at an additional premium@4% on the value of such kit to be specifically declared by the insured in the proposal form in a letter forming part of the proposal form.  The complainant’s had not paid any additional premium.  And also failed to mention the  fixing of LPG Kit and the LPG endorsement on RC in the proposal form.  According to opposite parties, the  non- mentioning of fixation of LPG kit in RC Book amounts to non disclosure of material facts.  Hence opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.  And there is no deficiency in service on the part of them and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          Third opposite party has not filed version.

          Fourth opposite party filed version contenting that there is no allegation or any deficiency in service is alleged by the complainant against 4^th opposite party and 4^th opposite party is an unnecessary party.  According to the 4^th opposite party, the4^th opposite party is a non banking finance company.  The complainant has availed finance from the 4^th opposite party for the purchase of Maruti Omini Car under Hypothecation agreement.  According to  the 4^th opposite party, on request of the complainant they had given assistance for reviewing the policy of the vehicle and they handed over relevant documents to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  And there is no deficiency in service on the part  of  the 4^th opposite party and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Points for determinations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of the chief and proof affidavit of the complainants and Ext.A1 to A8 documents.

Point No.1

          According to the complainant the act of the opposite party in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  The copy of the repudiation letter is produced and the same is marked as Ext.A2.  In Ext.A2 the reason for repudiation is stated as non-disclosure of the modification of LPG fuel instead of petrol to the opposite and non–payment of the premium towards LPG by the complainant.  Admittedly, the  complainant endorsed the alteration of fitting of LPG tank in the R.C.Book, but had not paid alteration in the insurance policy.  It is statutory to inform to the company about the alteration.  Further complainant is liable to pay additional insurance premium for the alteration.  Hence opposite party has not remitted additional premium to the opposite party insurance company for the alteration.  In our view there is violation of the condition of the policy.  In such cases it is the settled possession of law that the claim is to be settled on non-standard basis.  So the complainant is entitled for 75% of the claim amount.  Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

          In view of the findings in point no.1, complaint is allowed in part.

          In the result

1. The opposite party 1 and 2 is ordered to pay Rs. 12531/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization, to the complainant.

2. Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered.

3. The opposite parties 1& 2 are ordered to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  If not complied as directed, the complainant is entitled to 15% interest for the award amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16^th day of  October,20104.

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President        Sd/-

           Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member  Sd/-

          Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member      Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of complainant

Ext.A1-photocopy of Certificate of Registration

Ext.A2- copy of letter dtd 3-2-08

Ext.A3-copy of receipt dtd 25/9/07

Ext.A4-copy of repudiation letter dtd 29/11/07

Ext.A5-photocopy of certificate of registration

Ext.A6-copy of Tata AIG General Insurance Com.Ltd

Ext.A7-photocopy of cash memo issued by Indus Motors co. Ltd

Ext.A8-copy of lawyer’s notice

By Order,

Senior Superintendent