BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 100/2012 Filed on 27.03.2012

ORDER DATED: 28.07.2017

Complainant:

Pratheesh. R, Kakkamoola, Kalliyoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.            

Opposite parties:

1. Manager, H.D.F.C, ERGO, General Insurance Company, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

2. The Manager, Deedi Motors, N.H. Bypass, Venpalavattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. S. Ajith)

3. The Manager, Chevrolet Company, Chevrolet Spark, Trivandrum Branch, Kerala.

This case having been heard on 22.05.2017, the Forum on 28.07.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

Case of the complainant is that he had a Chevrolet Spark car with Reg. No. KL-01 BB 8938.  He is a coolie by profession.  He used to give this car for ride for his friends and relatives.  Whileso on 11.12.2011, when it was driven by one of his friends by name Riyas while returning from a marriage function, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged.  So the complainant had given the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for repair on insurance coverage.  But 1^st opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the policy conditions were violated by the complainant at the time of accident.  So he approached this Forum claiming for a new car along with compensation. 

1^st opposite party filed version contending as follows: The claim is not payable as per the policy conditions and the same was correctly repudiated.  On receiving the claim form, the opposite party arranged a survey through an authorized, licensed, independent surveyor and he filed his report.  An investigation was also arranged through a private investigating agency.  From the report of investigation it has come out that the vehicle was used for hire or reward in violation of its registration and policy conditions.  As there was flagrant serious violation of policy condition, the claim was not payable and the opposite party repudiated the claim and informed the matter to the complainant through letter dated 26.12.2011.  No amount was offered as alleged.  The claim was not at all payable as the vehicle was used as a rent-a-car in violation of the private car policy.  The complainant is working as a driver in the Kingfisher Airlines.  The said car registered in the name of the complainant is in the possession and use of one Sudheer Khan, the proprietor of Star Travels and he is using the said car for hire and reward.  One Mr. Riyas of Poonthura has taken the said car on hire from Sudheer Khan for the use of Riyas and his friends and when it was being used as a hired vehicle in violation of registration and policy, the alleged incident happened.  The statements by the complainant and Riyas were given to the private investigator during his enquiry.  Those statements were given voluntarily by them stating the true facts.  There no compulsion, coercion or misrepresentation as alleged.  All those false allegations are now raised only to escape from the mistake on the part of the complainant and to extract money from this opposite party illegally.  This opposite party never agreed to honour the claim as alleged.  This opposite party is bound to follow the policy conditions, norms, procedures and law laid down for settlement of claims and not as per the imaginations of the complainant.  The repair was never carried out and there is no evidence for any amount spent for the repairs.  The loss assessed by the authorized surveyor was only Rs. 171962/-.  Even if the claim was payable, then the liability of this opposite party can only be Rs. 171962/- after repair.  But the claim is not legally payable and hence repudiated.  The complaint is only to be dismissed.   

2^nd opposite party filed version contending as follows:  It is submitted that the complainant has entrusted his vehicle bearing No. KL-01 BB 8938 with this opposite party for repair works.  The vehicle was in a damaged condition and it was informed that the damages were occurred to the vehicle due to an accident.  This opposite party has accepted the vehicle for repair works and requested by the complainant the estimate for the repair works has also been provided to him.  The complainant has informed that the repair has to be done under insurance claim.  Accordingly the estimate was provided to make necessary claims with the 1^st opposite party, insurance company.  The 1^st opposite party has not sanctioned the payment and no instructions were given to this opposite party to carry out the repair works.  It is submitted that the complainant was not ready to bear the expenses and labour charges for carrying out the repair works and accordingly this opposite party could not carry out the repair works.  This opposite party is ready and willing to carry out the repair works if the complainant is ready to make advance payment against the estimate given to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. 

Issues:

1. Whether the claim repudiation is justifiable?
2. Reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3.  He was examined as PW1.  1^st opposite party also filed affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exts. D1 to D4.  DW1 and DW2 were the witnesses from opposite party’s side.  Perused the documents and heard both sides.  The above complaint is filed alleging non-settlement of a claim for damage happened to the complainant’s vehicle bearing No. KL-01-BB-8938 in an accident.  The loss was assessed by an independent licensed surveyor and he filed a report assessing the loss.  As there was doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged accident, an investigation was conducted through a private investigating agency and the investigation report revealed that the vehicle was used for hire or reward in violation of its registration and policy conditions.  As there was flagrant serious violation of policy condition, the claim was not payable and the opposite party repudiated the claim and informed the matter to the complainant through letter dated 26.12.2011.The investigation report as well as the deposition of complainant will clearly go to show that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward purpose in violation of policy condition.  That act of complainant will disentitle the complainant from claiming any compensation.  The claim was not at all payable as the vehicle was used as a rent-a-car in violation of the private car policy.  This aspect is made clear by the Hon’ble National Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Joginder Singh reported in 2008(4) CPJ 240 NC.  Complainant in his complaint and deposition states that during the course of investigation by the surveyor and investigator he was asked forcefully to sign certain papers, in the guise of papers that are needed for allowing the claim and those papers are the reasons for the repudiation of his claim.  The makers of those reports and their reports were produced before this Forum.  Ext. D3 and D4 were those reports and they were examined as DW1 and DW2, but even after giving ample opportunity complainant failed to cross examine these witnesses.  This fact itself shows the hollowness of their complaint.  Moreover opposite party alleges violation of policy condition.  The deposition of PW1 has brought out another violation also.   He has deposed that “കാറ് ബ്രഡ് കമ്പനി യില്‍ നിന്ന്‍ ബ്രഡ് എടുത്ത് കടകളില്‍ കൊടു ക്കാന്‍ ഉപയോഗിക്കും” which shows that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose also, which is also a violation of policy conditions.  In the first page of the policy itself it is clearly stated under the head that the policy covers only uses other than hire or reward, carriage of goods etc.  The same is given below: “Limitations as to use: The policy covers use for any purpose other than (a) Hire or Reward, (b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage), (c) Organized racing, (d) Pace Making, (e) Speed testing (f) Reliability trials (g) Any purpose in connection with Motor Trade”.  During cross examination the complainant was asked whether he knows Sudheer Khan, he said in negative.  But in the next few answers to the questions during cross, he states that he is the brother-in-law of Riyas, who had driven the vehicle at the time of accident and he owns a travel agency.  So the contention of opposite party that the present complainant was only an owner of the car for name sake will sustain.  Considering all these facts we can safely conclude that the repudiation done by the opposite party is justifiable.  No deficiency or unfair trade practice is alleged from the part of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  On the whole, complaint lacks merits which is only to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order on cost and compensation. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28^th day of July 2017.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

                        R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 100/2012

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Pratheesh. R

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of R.C Book 

P2     - Copy of insurance certificate

P3     - Copy of GD Extract

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Vinod. V

          DW2 - K. Ravikumar

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of survey report dated 20.12.2011

D2     - Copy of letter from 1^st opposite party to complainant

D3     - Copy of investigation report dated 19.12.2011

D4     - Copy of private car package policy

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb