IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.67/08 (Filed on 25.6.2008)Between: Bhuvanendran Nair, Gokulam, Mundukottackal.P.O., Vettipuram, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Sreelal) ..... Complainant And: 1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch. Addl. 2. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co., Divisional Office, Nelson Tower, Kayamkulam. (By Adv. Sam Koshy) ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant’s case is that he is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL3/J 4735, 2003 model Tata Indica DLX Car. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party on a comprehensive insurance policy bearing No.570204/31/07/6100027073, which is valid from 20.3.08 to 19.3.09. While so the vehicle met with an accident on 25.3.08 at about 5 a.m. at Omalloor in front of Govt. L.P.S, Omalloor as the vehicle hit against a milestone. Due to the said accident the vehicle sustained considerable damages. The matter was duly intimated to the opposite party and Pathanamthitta police. The vehicle was removed to Focus Motors, Thekkemala, Kozhencherry. The insurance surveyor came to the workshop and assessed the damages. The GD entry and all other relevant records were handed over to the surveyor and he gave instruction to the workshop authorities to repair the vehicle and the repair work has begun. After two days, opposite party intimated the workshop authorities to stop the work for the reasons unknown to the petitioner. Thereafter on 26.4.08 the complainant issued a letter to the 1st opposite party demanding the compliance of the legal obligations cast upon the company. But in spite of the receipt of the notice, the opposite party had not replied or given directions for the repairers. The vehicle was kept in the workshop for 2 months without starting the repair works. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to start the repair work of his vehicle at his own personal capacity since the opposite party was reluctant to perform their liability for the repairing works. The complainant had spent Rs.1,38,309.62 paise. Opposite party is liable to pay the expenses incurred by the complainant for the repairing works of his car as per the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the opposite party. The non-payment of the repairing charges by the opposite party is a deficiency of service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant, and the opposite parties are liable for the said deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for the realisation of the repairing expenses of Rs.1,38,309.62 ps. with 12% interest from the opposite parties along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost of this proceedings. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions: Opposite parties denied that they had not issued any insurance policy to the complainant’s vehicle covering the date on which the accident really took place. The policy No.570204/31/07/6100027073 covers the period only from 20.3.2008 to 19.3.2009. As per the claim form submitted by the complainant, the accident had occurred on 25.3.08 at Omalloor. But on enquiry it is revealed that the accident was occurred on 18.3.08 at 7 a.m at Keezhayikonam near Venjarammoodu. Thereafter the complainant managed to take a policy by deceitful means by misrepresenting facts before the insurance company. After managing to obtain a policy he had lodged a claim stating that the accident was occurred on 25.3.08 at different place. It is also revealed that the said vehicle was removed from the spot by using a Crane having Reg.No.KLO-8597 at about 10 a.m on 18.3.08. The complainant also managed to obtain a G.D entry stating that the vehicle met with an accident on 25.3.08 at Omalloor. The said G.D entry was also obtained by misrepresentation. The opposite parties had also evidence to show that the vehicle was entrusted with the repairer in the after noon of 18.3.08 and hence the claim of the complainant is not genuine and the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is legal. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint, as there is no deficiency of service from their part. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 4. The evidence of this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and DW2 and Ext.A1 toA8 and B1 to B3. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 5. The Point:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating his case along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the registration certificate of the complainant’s damaged vehicle. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the insurance certificate issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the estimate of repairs dated 29.3.08 prepared by Focus Motors, Kozhencherry. Ext.A4 is the photocopy of the letter-dated 26.4.08 sent to the 1st opposite party by the complainant demanding to settle the claim of the complainant. Ext.A5 is the postal receipt of Ext.A4. Ext.A6 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A4 notice. Ext.A7 is the photocopy of the G.D entry dated 27.3.08 of Pathanamthitta police prepared in connection with the accident. Ext.A8 is the cash receipt dated 28.8.08 for Rs.1,11,636-64 issued by Focus Motors, Kozhencherry in the name of the complainant. PW1 was cross-examined by counsel for the opposite parties. On the basis of the above evidence, complainant argued for allowing the complaint. 6. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the Branch Manager of the 1st opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with one document. Opposite parties also produced two witnesses. On the basis of the proof affidavit of the 1st opposite party, the document produced by him has been marked as Ext.B1. The witness produced by the opposite parties were examined as DW1 and DW2 and the documents brought by DW1 on the basis of the order of this Forum is marked as Ext.B2 and the document brought by the 1st opposite party is marked as Ext.B3 through DW2. DWs.1 and 2 were cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant. On the basis of the above evidence, opposite parties argued for the dismissal of the complaint. 7. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute regarding the accident of vehicle of the complainant and the issuance of a comprehensive policy to the insured vehicle for a period from 20.3.08 to 19.3.09. According to the complainant, the accident of the vehicle took place on 25.3.08 at Omalloor and on the date of accident, there is a valid insurance policy for the vehicle. But according to the opposite parties, the accident occurred on 18.3.08 at about 7 am at Keezhayikonam near Venjarammoodu and on that day there is no valid insurance policy for the vehicle in question. So the only question to be decided is when did the accident occurred? The complainant says that the accident was occurred on 25.3.08 at Omalloor. In order to prove the complainant’s claim, the complainant had produced the photocopy of the G.D abstract i.e. Ext.A7. No other documents or any witness were produced by the complainant for proving the date and place of occurrence of the accident. Ext.A7, G.D. entry does not disclose the name of the witnesses who were questioned by the police. It is also not clear from the G.D entry that when and where the police officials inspected the vehicle. The police officer who prepared Ext.A7 G.D entry is also not examined as a witness in this case. The said three aspects were specifically noted by this Forum because of the reason that the opposite parties had a specific allegation, right from their version onwards, that the accident was occurred on 18.3.08 at Keezhayikonam near Venjarammoodu. At the same time, the opposite parties had tried their level best to establish their contention by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence like Ext.B2 and B3. DW1 is the Marketing incharge of Focus Motors, Kozhencherry where the vehicle in question is entrusted by the complainant for repairs after the accident. DW2 is the Crane Operator who had taken the vehicle from Venjarammoodu to Kozhencherry immediately after the accident as per the direction of complainant and the workers of Focus Motors. Ext.B2 and B3 and the oral testimony of DWs.2 and 3 shows that the accident was occurred on 18.3.08 at Keezhayikonam. We find no reason to disbelieve Ext.B2 and B3 and the oral testimony of DWs.1 and 2. Moreover, it is surprising to note that the estimated cost of towing and spot repairing charge is Rs.5,000/- as per item No.1 in Page No.2 of Ext.A3 estimate. Considering the distance from Omalloor to Thekkemala and the size of the vehicle met with the accident, we feel that the estimated towing charges is too much and such an estimation was made for the expenses actually incurred for bringing the vehicle from Keezhaikonam. Above all what prevented the complainant from adducing evidence through Focus Motors to show that the vehicle was brought to the workshop only on 25.3.08, if his claim regarding the place and date of accident was true and genuine. 8. On the basis of the discussions herein above, we are constrained to accept the contention of the opposite parties that the date of accident was on 18.3.08 at Keezhaikonam near Venjarammoodu and on that day the vehicle owned by the complainant had no valid insurance policy and Ext.A2 policy was obtained by the complainant by deceitful means by misrepresenting facts before the insurance company and the police. But the insurance company and the police authorities have to answer whether their officials have observed the fundamental guidelines for issuing a new insurance policy and in making and issuing a G.D. entry. We are also constrained to say that the plea taken by the opposite parties “utmost good faith” is not for saving the company but for saving the officer who had issued Ext.A2 the policy without inspecting the vehicle. In the circumstances and with the above observations, we find no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties and hence this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 9. However, from the facts and circumstances of this case, we infer that some foul play had occurred in the issuance of Ext.A2 policy and Ext.A7 G.D entry from the part of the officials concerned. If so, it is against public interest and law and is to be discouraged. So we are inviting the attention of the Chief Regional Manager of the opposite parties and Director General of Police, Kerala State for looking into the above said observations made by this Forum in this regard. So we are directing the Superintendent of this office to forward a copy of this judgment with a covering letter to the Chief Regional Manager of the opposite parties at Ernakulam and Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, for their information and for taking necessary action. 10. In the result, this complaint is dismissed with the above direction. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 15th day of June, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Bhuvanendran Nair. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of the registration certificate of the complainant’s damaged vehicle. A2 : Photocopy of the insurance certificate issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. A3 : Potocopy of the estimate of repairs dated 29.3.08 prepared by Focus Motors, Kozhencherry. A4 : Photocopy of the letter dated 26.4.08 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. A5 : Postal receipt of Ext.A4. A6 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A4 notice. A7 : Photocopy of the GD entry dated 27.3.08 of Pathanamthitta police. A8 : Cash receipt dated 28.8.08 for Rs.1,11,636.64 ps. issued by Focus Motors, Kozhencherry to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Nelson Philip DW2 : S. Murukan Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Copy of the Survey Report dated 14.5.2008. B2 : Photocopy of Vehicle Incoming Register. B3 : Statement issued by Sree Muruka Motor Works, Venjarammoodu. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to: (1) Bhuvanendran Nair, Gokulam, Mundukottackal.P.O., Vettipuram, Pathanamthitta. (2) The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch. (3) The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co., Divisional Office, Nelson Tower, Kayamkulam. (4) The stock file.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
