Date of filing :22-01-2009 Date of order :05-01-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC. No. 15/09 Dated this, the 5th day of January 2010. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Krishnan.K, R/at Vaisakh, Thulicheri, } Complainant Po.Manikoth, Kanhangad. (Adv. Jayalekha.T, Kasaragod) The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd, Ganesh } Opposite party Building, 1st floor, Bantwal Cross Road, D.K, Karnataka. 574219. (Adv. U.S. Balan, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The nutshell the case of the complainant Krishnan is that his stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL14/F 4599 insured with opposite party on 22-02-2008 at 8.10 AM hit on electric posts (double posts) belongs to the K.S.E.B and the posts damaged due to accident. The complainant intimated the nature of accident and submitted claim with opposite party along with a certificate issued by S.I. of Police, Rajapuram. The complainant also intimated the accident in the office of the K.S.E.B and their officials visited the spot and a job card was prepared for damages occurred to the electric posts. Since there were no injury to the third party, as per the instruction of police the complainant paid Rs.15,135/- towards the damages caused to the electric posts to K.S.E.B and obtained receipt. The payment was made after due consultation and intimation to opposite party on the basis of the job card prepared by the officials of K.S.E.B. But on submission of the claim with opposite party for the indemnification of said damages, the opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the claim cannot entertained since the ‘survey’ was not conducted before the repairs of the damaged vehicle was carried out and also that for the Third Party Property Damage (TPPD) claim a case has to be filed at the court and only after they receive summons the matter will be further considered. Hence the complaint for a direction to opposite party to pay the sum of Rs.15,135/- with interest, compensation and costs. 2. Opposite party contended that complaint is not maintainable and Motor Vehicles Act provides a separate Forum for redressing the grievance for violation of the contractual obligations. It is further contended that the job card prepared by the K.S.E.B and the certificate issued by S.I. of Police, Rajapuram was not within the knowledge of the opposite party and the same was prepared behind the back and hence not binding on opposite party. Further there is no contractual obligation between K.S.E.B and the opposite party. It also contended that the insurance policy is an Act only policy and as per the policy conditions no liability is cast on the insurance company to pay damages caused by the electric post of the K.S.E.B. At the time of accident the stage carriage was overloaded and hence there is breach of terms of policy. The opposite party later on filed a separate application to amend the version and it was further contended that as per Sec.11 of the policy only a third party can file a case against insurance company for the loss or damage to the life or property and claim preferred by the insured is not sustainable and insured has no right to settle or compromise voluntarily on his own and further seeks reimbursement plus expenses from the company and the third party K.S.E.B, did not file a case before M.A.C.T for the damages caused to their property and the insured compromised the matter without the consent of opposite party. Hence the insured has got no cause of action to file these proceedings either before this Forum or before M.A.C.T and the jurisdiction of this Forum is ousted and the insured had failed to submit the vehicle documents before the opposite party such as driving license of the driver, RC, Fitness Certificate, load challan and the permit. Hence opposite party is not liable to indemnify the damages and pay the amount claimed. 3. On the side of the complainant Exts A1 to A5 marked and Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party. 4. The only issue to be settled in this case is whether the opposite party is liable to indemnify the insured/complainant for the payments made by insured to the K.S.E.B towards the damages caused to their electric posts on account of the accident or not? 5. Ext.A1 is the copy of the Insurance Policy. Ext.A2 is the Data sheet prepared by the K.S.E.B estimating the damages caused to the electric posts. As per Ext.A2. Rs.15,135/- is seen calculated towards the replacement of damaged electric posts. Ext.A3 is the receipt issued by K.S.E.B from the Electrical Section Office of Rajapuram to the complainant towards the receipt of Rs.15,135/-. Ext.A4 is the certificate issued by Rajapuram Police with respect to the accident caused to the electric posts by the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14F/ 4599. Ext.A5 is the claim repudiation letter dated 24-03-2008 issued by opposite party to the complainant. 6. Ext.B1 is the copy of the policy including the terms and conditions. 7. The contentions that the jurisdiction of the Forum is ousted and only the M.A.C.T is competent to deal with this case is not sustainable since this complaint is preferred not by any third party but by the insured himself. Hence the complaint is maintainable before Forum. Further in Ext.A5 repudiation letter the opposite party has stated that for the TPPD claim (Third Party Property Damage) claim a case has to be filed at the court, and only after receiving summons the matter will be considered. Except this no other specific reason is stated not to honour the claim. The complainant also had the case that the settled he settled the payment made to K.S.E.B towards the damages caused to the electric posts after due consultation and intimation to opposite party. 8. Opposite party advanced a further contention that if at all they are liable to pay any damages, then their liability is limited to Rs.6000/- in view of Sec 147 (2)(b) of Motor Vehicles Act. The counsel for opposite party relied on the following decisions to support his contention United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. K. Raveendran Nair & Others reported in 2003 ACJ 2159, of United India Insurance Co. Ltd V. R. Narayana Reddy & another 2001 ACJ 1920, etc. The said contention is also not acceptable since the policy under which the claim is preferred by the complainant /insured is a comprehensive/package policy and it’s limits of liability under Section II (i) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event is Rs.7,50,000/-. Moreover no evidence is brought before us to showing any violation of policy conditions to exonerate or limit, the liability of opposite party. 9. The Ext.A3 is the official receipt issued by K.S.E.B for receipt of Rs.15,135/- towards the expenses for the replacement the electric posts as calculated in Ext.A2 estimate. We do not find any reason to disbelieve those documents. The Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had an occasion to consider similar issue in (Appeal No.409/2002). New India Assurance Co. Ltd V. P.B. Raghunath decided on 8-4-08 (confonet). In the said appeal the Hon’ble State Commission directed the insurer to pay the amount paid by the insured to K.S.E.B for the electric post damaged in the accident. In view of the above discussion we allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.15,135/-to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which the above Rs.15,135/- will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.30-1-08. Copy of policy A2. 28-2-08 Copy of Data Sheet A3. 28-2-08 Receipt issued by K.S.E.B. Rajapuram. A4. 17-3-08 Certificate issued by Rajapuram Police Station A5. 24-3-08 letter issued by OP to complainant. B1. Copy of Policy. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
