Date of filing : 30-06-2010 Date of order : 29 -09-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 155/10 Dated this, the 29th day of September 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER Bhaskar Naik, S/o.Mana Naik, } Complainant Door No.10/42, Sanna Kudlu, Po.Kudlu, Kasaragod. (Adv.A.Balakrishnan Nair, kasaragod) The Manager, } Opposite party Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, Sakthi Building, Main Road, Iritty, Kannur.Dt. (Adv. A.K.V.Balakrishnan, Hosdurg) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Case of complainant in brief is that his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-10/J 2028 duly insured with opposite party is met with an accident on 14-3-2010 and caused damages . But on preferring the claim the opposite party repudiated it on the ground that on the date of accident the vehicle was plied without a valid permit which amounts to violation of policy conditions since there was no permit of Tourist Taxi at the time of accident. The complainant had spent `62,434/- towards the repair charges. Therefore the complaint seeking an order against the opposite parties for the above amount with compensation of 25,000/- and costs. 2. Opposite party filed version admitting the policy and accident. But according to opposite party as per the survey report the surveyor assessed the damages at `56,332/- including labour charges and costs of spare parts. The vehicle is registered as All India Tourist Taxi and the permit authorization of the vehicle is valid from 19-04-2010 to 16-04-2011 and at the relevant time of accident it did not had a valid permit. Hence the claim is repudiated for violation of policy condition. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A8 marked. For opposite party Exts B1 to B4 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused. The issue in dispute is whether the insurance company can repudiate the claim in toto for the reason the vehicle was not having a valid permit at the time of accident or not? In the case of Amalendu Sahoo V Oriental Insurance Co Ltd reported in II (2010) CPJ (SC) wherein the vehicle used for personal use was used on hire was met with an accident. On preferring the claim, it was repudiated by insurer. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that repudiation of claim in toto is unjustified and claim ought to have been settled on non-standard basis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case New India Assurance Co. Ltd V. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak reported in II (2006) CPJ 144 (NC) for rendering the above judgment. Wherein the Hon”ble National Commission set out the guidelines issued by the Insurance Company about settling the non-standard claims. 4. The same principle can be applied in this case also. As per Ext.B3 survey report the surveyors assessment is `56,332/-. Complainant is entitled for 75% of the said amount for settlement of the claim on non-standard basis. Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay 75% of `56,332/- i.e. `42,249 (rounded to `42,200/-) with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment together with a cost of `3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which the said amount `42,200/- will carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Photocopy of RC A2. Photocopy of Tax licence A3.Photocopy of Permit in respect of all India Tourist Vehicles. A4.Photocopy of Authorisation Tourist Permit A5..Photocopy of cash receipt A6. Photocopy of postal receipt A7. Photocopy of retail cash Memo A8. Photocopy of letter issued by Opposite party B1. Motor Insurance Certificate cum policy schedule. B2. Photocopy of RC B3. Form TVP permit in respect of all India tourist vehicles (Photocopy) B4.4-5-10. Survey report. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
