Date of Complaint : 05/06/2015

                                  Date of Disposal :28/03/2016

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

  JUDGEMENT BY SRI.V.A. PATIL PRESIDENT

O R D E R

     This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opponents for the deficiency of service and prays this

Hon’ble Forum to direct the opponents to pay the sum of Rs.62,938/- being the expenses incurred towards repairing the vehicle and Rs.5,000/- towards  towing charges, and other benefits of compensation and costs of the complaint.

1. The brief facts of this complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of the Eicher goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA 12 A 5677 and having the valid comprehensive insurance policy which was valid from 02/06/2014 to 01/06/2015.On 30/12/2014 the said vehicle met with an accident and the said matter was informed to the opponents.Accordingly as per the formalities Surveyor was appointed and assessed the damages to the extent of Rs.62,938/-.Subsequently the complainant submitted the claim form along with the necessary documents to the opponents.

    

2. After verification of the documents the opponents repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that as on the date of the accident the vehicle had no fitness certificate.Further the contention of the complainant is that the reasons given for the repudiation is illegal, arbitratory and non-settlement of claim even after many visits to opponent’s office amounts to deficiency of service.As the opponents have repudiated the claim of the complainant with no other alternative the complainant approached this Forum seeking the remedy for his grievances, as shown in the complaint.

    

    

3. After service of the notice from this Forum the opponents appeared through their counsel and filed the following objections and resisted the complaint.

         Opponents admits that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle and admits the validity of the policy and i.e., from 02/06/2014 to 01/06/2015 and further admits that the said vehicle met with an accident on 30/12/2014.  It is the contention of the opponents that the claim is repudiated, as there is the violation of the policy conditions i.e., not possessing the “FITNESS CERTIFICATE” as on the date of the accident.  Further the opponents submit that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle and justified the repudiation and further contended that as there is no deficiency of services, they are not liable to identify the complainant and request this Forum to dismiss the complaint.

    

4. The complainant and the opponents have filed their respective, version, affidavits and arguments along with the concerned documents.On perusal of the same, the points that arise for our consideration are as below;

    

5. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the side of the opponents?

6. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought?

7. What order?

Our findings on the points supra are as below.

Point No.1:- Affirmative

Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative

Point No.3:- As per final order

R E A S O N S

1. Point No.1:- It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA 12 A 5677 and insured the said vehicle with the opponents and the said vehicle met with an accident on 30/12/2014 and the said matter was informed to the opponents and the claim form was submitted and the same is repudiated by the opponents stating the reason that at the time of the accident, the complainant was not possessing the fitness certificate of the vehicle, which met with accident. 

    

        On verification of the documents it is true that the vehicle met with an accident on 30/12/2014 and it is true that the insurance policy issued by the opponents in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA 12 A 5677 was valid from 02/06/2014 to 01/06/2015.  At the time of issuing the policy it was the duty of the opponents to demand for the fitness certificate and the opponents should verify the same at the time of renewing of the policy.  When the policy is issued and the vehicle met with an accident within the insured period, it is the liability of the insurance company to compensate the loss.  When there is the liability to pay the compensation, the repudiation is not justified, and the same amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, we answer the point No.01 in affirmative. 

    

2. Point No.02:- The complainant in his complaint prays this Forum to direct the opponents to pay the sum of Rs.62,938/- being the expenses incurred towards repair of the said vehicle and Rs.5,000/- towards towing charges etc.

    

           On verification of the documents submitted by the complainant.  It is observed that no documents are submitted to show that the insured spent Rs.62,938/- towards repair charges and Rs.5,000/- towards towing charges.  But produced three documents shown as cash bill and credit bill and two invoices dated 10/04/2015.  But they are not supported by the affidavits of the respective issuing authorities.   Hence, they can’t be considered.  The opponent submitted the final survey report issued by the independent/ licenced surveyor which clearly shows the total assessment of loss is to the extent of Rs.20,588/- which is to be taken in to consideration, and the same is allowed.  The complainant has not produced any document regarding payment of towing charges.  Hence, it is not allowed.  Hence, we answer Point No.2 in  partly affirmative.

    

         The facts of this complaint are similar to the facts reported in ILR 2014Kar-191 and our findings also based on the above decision.

    

         Hence, under these circumstances we are of the opinion that, there is deficiency of service and in view of the reasons and the findings above we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed in part.  Hence, in the final result we proceed to pass the following;

    

    

   O R D E R

    

3. Complaint is allowed in part and the opponents are directed to pay the sum of Rs.20,588/- (Rupees twenty thousand five hundred and eighty eight only) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of full realization.

4. The opponents are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- and the cost of Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

5. The opponents are directed to comply the said order within 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order and in failure to comply this order within prescribed period the opponents are liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on total amount of Rs.27,588/- from the date of this order.

6. If this order is violated, the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the Ops as per law.

7. Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th  day of March 2016)

        (LATHA.M.S.)           (V.A. PATIL)            (K.D. PARVATHY)      

           MEMBER               PRESIDENT                 MEMBER       

ANNEXURE

        (LATHA.M.S.)           (V.A. PATIL)            (K.D. PARVATHY)      

           MEMBER               PRESIDENT                 MEMBER