DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  24^th  day of  July, 2023 

Present      :    Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                               Date of Filing:  14/09/2021    

                                                                                  CC/141/2021

Appu,

S/o.Narayanan,

Puthanthara, Pokkunni,

Vadavannur, Palakkad – 678 504.                               -                      Complainant

(By Adv. V.Sahadevan)  

                                                                                                Vs

1. The Branch Manager,

M/s.New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,

Sreevalli Building Complex,

Anicode, Chittur, Palakkad – 678 101.

2. The Assistant Engineer,
   KSEB, Electrical Section,

Vandithavalam, Chittur Palakkad.                              -                       Opposite parties  

(OP 1 by Adv.C.Balachandran; &

OP2 by Adv. Remika C)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President  

1. Facts are not in dispute that the vehicle of the complainant driven by the complainant’s son crashed against an installation of the 2^nd O.P. while  having a valid and subsisting third party policy issued by the 1^st O.P. Damages assessed to a tune of Rs. 56,673/- was paid off by the complainant’s son himself. When the complainant raised a claim, the same was rejected by the 1^st O.P.
2. Herein the pleadings bifurcate with the complainant pleading that the 1^st O.P. informed that the claim being over 25,000/- they could not honour the claim. The 1^st O.P. opposed this plea on the ground that the claim was rejected as the driver was not holding a valid license. Further, the 1^st O.P. also contended that the complainant failed to inform the 1^st O.P. regarding the accident immediately, thereby preventing the  1^st O.P. from assessing the damages through their surveyors.
3. In so far as the facts and circumstances of the case are concerned, pleadings of the 2^nd O.P. are immaterial insofar as adjudication of the dispute is concerned. Hence they are not reproduced. 
4. Complaint is filed seeking the amounts paid by the complaint for the damages caused to the installation of O.P.2 and for incidental and ancillary reliefs.
5. Post pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration.

1. Whether MACT alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter or this Commission is empowered to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether the 2^nd O.P. is a necessary party to the complaint as no relief is claimed against them?
3. Whether there is any violation of policy conditions on the part of the complainant as alleged by 1^st O.P.?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st O.P.?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed?
6. Any other reliefs?

6.         (i)         Complainant filed proof affidavit marked Exts. A1 to A4.

                        Marking of Ext. A4 was objected to on the ground it is a photocopy. Since this Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of any plea that the said document is forged or concocted, objection is overruled.  

(ii)        OPs filed proof affidavit. Exts.B1 was marked by O.P.1. O.P.2 did not mark any documents.

Issue No. 1

7.         This issue was taken up for hearing as a preliminary issue and heard and found in favour of the complainant on 22/08/2022.

Issue No. 2  

 8.        O.P.2 is the Kerala State Electricity Board. Complainant’s son rammed his vehicle into the installation of the 2^nd O.P. An amount was charged by the 2^nd O.P. for the damages sustained. Complainant is not aggrieved by the conduct of the 2^nd O.P. No relief is claimed as against them either.

9.         Hence we conclude that the 2^nd O.P. is not a necessary party to the litigation.

Issue No. 3 

10.       Per pleadings of the complainant, he is entitled to receive the entire amounts that he had paid to the 2^nd O.P and that the 1^st O.P repudiated the claim of the complainant as the 1^st O.P. did not have authority to pay amounts exceeding Rs. 25,000/-.

11.       1^st OP denied the said allegations. They contended that the claim was rejected as the driver was not having a valid license at the time of accident. The complainant had not produced a copy of the driving license of his son. They even sought a direction to order production of a certified copy of driving license of the complainant son. The second allegation was that the complainant has not reported the accident to the 1^st OP thereby depriving them of a chance to assess the damages by using their assets and resources.  They also contended that the usual mode of procedure for effecting payment was that the 2^nd OP approached the MACT for an award covering their damages.

12.       The primary contention of the 1^st OP is that the driver was not having a valid license at the time of driving.  They even sought a direction to the complainant to produce a copy of the driving license. When the opposite party has raised such a contention the complainant ought to have produced the driving license of his son, so as to defeat the allegations raised as against him.

            Complainant having failed to file the driving license of his son, we are resorting to a presumption that the complainant’s son was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. Absence of a valid driving license being in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy conditions, the O.P.1 was legally entitled to repudiate the claim of the complainant.

13.       We are also of the opinion that the statement made by the complainant that the 1^st OP was unable to honour the claim as it is above Rs.25,000/- is made solely for the purpose of this complaint. There are no merits in the said contention.

14.       We therefore hold that there are merits in the contention of the 1^st  OP that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident, thereby violating a valid condition in Ext.B1 policy schedule.

             Issue No. 4 & 5 

15.       Following the finding in issue No.3, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st OP.

16.       The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

            Issue No. 6       

17.       As already stated, we have come to a conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident, thereby violating a valid condition in Ext.B1 policy schedule.  The complainant has, even after being aware of this violation, went ahead with filing this complaint against the OPs. We can very well understand if the complaint was filed against OP1 alone, but roping in the 2^nd opposite party is an entirely different matter.  After having their installations destroyed, the 2^nd opposite party was pulled into a dispute for no fault of theirs.  In fact, the dispute itself arose as a result of the violation of the terms and condition of the insurance policy by the complainant himself.

18.       In such an eventuality, the 2^nd OP is to be compensated fairly for the vexatious treatment and harassment meted out to them by the complainant.  We order the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the 2^nd opposite party.

19.       Holding thus, we dismiss the complaint.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the   24^th  day of July, 2023.      

                                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                                President

                         Sd/-

              Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                     Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext.A1 –  Copy of policy schedule cum certificate insurance

Ext.A2 –  Copy of GD abstract bearing No.16 dated 22/12/2020

Ext.A3(a) – Original KSEB receipt No.A2168092000474 sheet 1

Ext.A3(b) – Original KSEB receipt No.A2168092000474 sheet 2

Ext.A4 –  Copy of registration certificate

 Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1 –   Copy of exhibit A1 alongwith terms and conditions

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness:  Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.