IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 31/14
Tuesday the 30th day of June, 2015
Petitioner : Manoj
Valel House,
Pulickal Kavala PO,
Vazhoor, Kottayam.
(Adv. Manish Jose)
Vs
Opposite parties : The Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Office, Hillson Heights
Opp. CTO, MC Road,
Near Pulimoodu Junction,
Kottayam-1.
(Adv. Sathesh Mathew Zacharias)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 01/01/14 is as follows.
The complainant’s vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL-05Z-6940 was insured with the opposite party. The policy No. is 1005053112 P 301182491, valid from 8-12-12 to 7-12-13. The said vehicle was met with an accident and sustained damages to the vehicle. The accident was reported to the opposite party and they had deputed its surveyor to assess the damages. The complainant had complied with all the formalities required by the opposite party. But the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that the driver of the vehicle has no badge to drive a commercial vehicle. According to the complainant at the time of the accident the above said vehicle was not used for commercial purpose. The complainant on 13-8-13 sent lawyer’s notice to opposite party and they sent reply with untenable contentions avoiding to settle the claim of the complainant. According to the complainant the act of opposite party in repudiating the legitimate claim of the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party filed version admitting the valid insurance of the complainant’s vehicle and repudiation of the complainant’s claim. According to the opposite party they had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there is violation of policy conditions. The driver, who drive the vehicle at the time of accident, does not have a valid driving licence with badge to drive the commercial vehicle. Even if the vehicle is not using for commercial purpose, the driver of a commercial vehicle should have a badge to drive such a type of vehicle. According to the opposite party the repudiation of the claim is on valid grounds and there is no deficiency in service on the part of them. And opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of both sides. And Ext.A1 to A6 documents from the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B6 documents from the side of opposite party. Complainant filed argument note.
Point No.1
Complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite party on repudiating his genuine claim. The policy of the vehicle and accident is admitted. According to the opposite party, complainant is not having a valid licience with a badge to drive a commercial vehicle. Complainant produced repudiation letter dated 18/7/03 issued by the opposite party and the said document is marked as Ext.A2. In Ext.A2 reason for repudiation is stated as “driver doesn’t have a valid driving licence with badge to drive a commercial vehicle at the time of accident”. Admittedly driver of the vehicle is having a valid licence but no badge to drive commercial vehicle. In our view obtaining a badge for driving a commercial vehicle is purely a technical issue and cannot be treated as a fundamental breach. So far as a driver is concerned he has valid driving licence for driving a vehicle. Here admittedly he is having a licence, while construing an insurance policy the main purpose of the policy is to be looked. Main purpose of policy is to indemnify the damage cause to the vehicle. So in our view the repudiation of the claim on the ground that driver of the vehicle is having no valid badge amounts to deficiency in service.
The Surveyor who appointed by the opposite party filed his report. The said report of the surveyor is marked as Ext.B3. As per Ext.B3 the total loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs.22,266/-. According to the complainant an amount of Rs.89,689/- is incurred by the complainant towards cost of spare parts and labour charges in repairing the vehicle. Bills issued by Essar Auto Service are produced and the same is marked as Ext.A1. The total amount as per Ext.A1 is 89,689/-. Since there is a report of statutory licenced surveyor without disproving the same by examining the surveyor we cannot come to a conclusion that, that much amount is incurred by the complainant for repairing the vehicle. So in our view complainant is eligible for the amount assessed by the surveyor. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 complaint is allowed.
In the result, the following order is passed.
- Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.22,266/- with 12% interest from the date of repudiation till realization.
- Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered
- Opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.
The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2015.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents for the petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of bill issued by Essar Auto service for Rs.89,689/-
Ext.A2-Copy of repudiation letter dtd 18/7/13 issued from Branch Manager
Ext.A3-Copy of lawyer’s notice dtd 13/8/13
Ext.A4-Postal receipt
Ext.A5-AD card
Ext.A6-Photocopy of RC book
Documents for the opposite party
Ext.B1-Motor Claim Form dtd 30-4-2013
Ext.B2-Estimate for Labour dt 25/4/13
Ext.B3-Motor(Final)Survey Report dtd 10-7-13
Ext.B4-Series of Sale bills (3 Nos)
Ext.B5-Reply letter dtd 26/8/13
Ext.B5(a)AD card
Ext.B5(b)Postal receipt
Ext.B6-Copy of Package Policy
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
