Date of filing : 10-06-2011
Date of order : 29 -09-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 133/2011
Dated this, the 29th day of September 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Benny Joseph, } Complainant
S/o.Joseph,
R/at Chakkala House,
Beemanady Village and Post,
Hosdurg Taluk & District.
(Adv.K. Kumaran Nair, Kasaragod)
The Manager, } Opposite party
United India Insurance Company Ltd,
Nithyananda Building, Po.Box No.29,
Main Road, Kanhangad. 671355,
Kasaragodt.Dist.
(Adv.C.Damodharan, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The vehicle Tavera bearing reg.No. KL-08/AL-4140 belongs to the complainant involved in an accident and damaged beyond repair. Complainant preferred a claim with the opposite party, the insurer of the vehicle. IDV of the vehicle was `3,50,000/- and the complainant gave a consent letter to opposite party to settle the claim on salvage loss basis agreeing to accept `2,49,000/- being the full and final settlement of claim. But opposite party issued a letter to the complainant with a settlement voucher stating that the claim of the complainant was approved for `1,86,750/-. It was against the settlement arrived between the complainant and opposite party. Therefore the complainant did not accept the said amount and filed this complaint.
2. According to opposite party the policy coverage was for 6 persons. But at the time of accident the vehicle was overloaded since it had seven persons. Since this is a violation of policy condition the claim is settled on non-standard basis after deducting 25% of the amount assessed by the surveyor and `1,86,750/- as allowed.
3. Both the sides heard. Exts A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. Exts B1 & B2 marked on the side of opposite party.
4. The learned counsel for opposite party Sri. C.Damodaran contended that on account of overloading the driver lost control over the vehicle and that was the reason for the accident and therefore the deduction of 25% of the amount assed by the surveyor is on account of policy violation and is quite reasonable.
5. But we are unable to agree with the contention of the opposite party. Ext.A1 is the copy of FIR lodged pertaining to the accident. In which the FIS states that the accident is caused due to the snoozing of the driver during driving.
6. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V Nagaraju V. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (1996) 4SCC 642 has held that if the presence of the passengers did not contribute to the cause of the accident no objection can be taken by the insurer on that ground.
7. Therefore the settlement of claim on non-standard basis is not justifiable and it amounts to deficiency in service.
The complaint is therefore allowed and opposite party is directed to pay `2,49,000/- suggested by the surveyor on salvage loss basis with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment with a cost of `3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 1-1-2011 FIR
A2.Photocopy of permit in respect of all India Tourist Vehicle of Benny Joseph.
A3.Photocopy of certificate of insurance.
B1.Copy of policy
B2. 22-03-2011 Motor Survey Report.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
Pj/
