Date of filing : 12-06-2012
Date of order : 27-05-2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRE SSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.198/2012
Dated this, the 27th day of May 2016
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Jayarajan.N.V, S/o. P.Krishnan, : Complainant
R/at n.V. House, Po. Klaikode, Cheemeni,
Via.Cheruvathur. Kasaragod.Dt.
(Advs.K.Kumaran Nair& RajeshKumar Shetty,
Kasaragod)
The Manager, : Opposite party
Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd,
403 and 404, IVth Floor, Crystal Arc,
Near Hotel Roopa, Mangalore. 575 001.
(Adv.S.Mammu, Taliparamba)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The gist of the complainant’s case is that he is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL.60-8613 which is insured with the opposite party. The said vehicle met with an accident on 29-04-2010 and caused heavy damage to the vehicle. The accident is duly intimated and surveyor assessed the damages as Rs.1,83,477/- only. But actually the complainant had sustained a total loss of Rs.2,29,690/- on account of the accident. When the complainant submitted for compensation, opposite party failed to pay any compensation . The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint.
2. In the version the opposite party submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having driving licence at the time of accident and thereby violated the policy condition stipulated in M.V.Act. A violator of law is not entitled for damages. The allegation in the complaint that there are 2 drivers of the same name and driving licence of the other driver was mistakenly given to the opposite party etc are only concocted story. As per the RC and policy the seating capacity of the vehicle involved in the accident is only 3, whereas at the relevant time 5 persons were travelling in the vehicle is a violation of policy condition and permit condition. There is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 series were marked and opposite party represented that he has no oral evidence to adduce and Exts B1 to B8 were marked and evidence were analyzed and documents scrutinized. Heard the counsel for both sides.
4. The main question involved in this case is whether the PW1 is entitled for the repair charge for the vehicle. The opposite party denied the compensation mainly on 2 grounds.(1) driver is not having a valid driving licence at the time the accident. But the driver was having valid licence to drive was transport vehicle at the time of accident. It was admitted by DW1 while he was examined before the Forum. He further admitted that except the non renewal of the licence, the driver was not having any other disqualifications. As the driving licence to drive transport vehicle was not renewed during the grace time after the accident, it cannot be said that he was disqualified to drive the vehicle. In the case of T.V.Augustine V.Ayyappan Kutty @ Mani & Anr which is reported in 2015 (2) KLJ 392 it was held that, the insurer cannot claim exoneration from its liability to indemnify the owner of a vehicle in respect of injuries to 3rd parties even if the accident had taken place after the expiry of the period of validity of fitness certificate or permit. In the case of Ayyappan V. United India Insurance Co.Ltd 2013 (3) KLJ 306 it was held that mere technical violations could not lead to a situation whereby the insurer can avoid the liability towards the 3rd party. The other contention is that there were 5 persons in the vehicle including the driver at the time of the accident. But DW1 admitted the said 4 childrens were minors. Therefore it cannot be taken that the contention that there were altogether 5 persons in the cabin. A minor cannot be taken as a person mentioned in the policy condition. Moreover, there was an inadvertent mistake that the driving licence of the other driver was given to the surveyor but later the mistake was rectified by producing the correct one. Since PW1 already proved that the claim of the complainant was denied by opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, complainant is entitled for a necessary relief.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,83,477/- with 10% interest from the date of complaint till realization and compensation of Rs.20,000/- with a cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Copy of Certificate cum policy schedule
A2. 18-1-2011 Copy of lawyer notice.
A3.31-1-2011 Reply notice.
A4.series marked subject to objection.
B1. Photo copy of Driving licence particulars of P.Raghavan.
B2. Photocopy of Certificate cum policy Schedule(Duplicate)
B3. Copy of FIR
B4. Copy of Final Report
B5. Copy of Goods Carriage Permit
B6.13-12-2010 copy of RTI
B7.Copy of OP(MV) 521/2010 and 607/2010
B8.Copy of Motor Insurance Claim Form.
PW1.N.V.Jayarajan.
DW1. Rinu Aswan
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
