D.O.F:11/11/2019
D.O.O:31/05/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.218/2019
Dated this, the 31stday of May 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Mr.Ahammed Sahad M.K,
S/o Mohammed Kunhi,
R/at Adiyanthotty House, : Complainant
Chala Road, Bedira, Vidyanagar Post,
Kasaragod Taluk,
Kasaragod
(Adv. Nabeesath Sibinu & Naveen .S.N)
And
The Manager,
Liberty Videocon Insurance Co. Ltd,
4-1-85/21-Shop No.203 and 4-1-85/25, : Opposite Party
Shop No.207, 2nd Floor,
In land Avenue M.G Road,
Dakshina Kannada Karnataka- 575003
(Adv.C.V. Narayanan)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended)
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant is the owner of WW POLO GT1.2TSI BS IV car vehicle No. KL 14 U 5115, which was validly insured with the opposite party, with policy No.2011-500203-17-1002215, for the period from 06.03.2018 to 05.03.2019.
The vehicle met with an accident on 04.01.2018, while complainant’s friend Mr. Noushad C.A was travelling to Thrissur. The above incident was reported to the concerned police station at Kodakara.
The vehicle was damaged gravely and repaired spending an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. The opposite party repudiated the insurance claim without valid reason. The act of the opposite party is service deficiency and unfair trade practice,due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and monetary loss.Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,50,000/- along with Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and costs.
The opposite party entered appearance through their counsel, who filed written Version.
As per the version of the opposite party the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
The opposite party admit that the vehicle is insured with them. The policy is issued subject to certain terms and conditions.It is also admitted that the above vehicle met with an accident. But it is denied that Mr. Noushad was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Instead, Mr. AhammedSahad, the complainant, the owner of the vehicle himself was driving the vehicle.In the general diary entry of the Kodakara police station, that aspect is specifically mentioned also. Since Mr. AhammedSahad has no valid driving licence, approached the police authorities and gave an additional statement that it was Mr. Noushad CA, who drove the vehicle. It was an afterthought, in order to reap benefit of the insurance claim.The GD entry was documented immediately after the incident clearly shows that the complainant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
The claim was denied for violation of the policy condition, as the complainant who drove the vehicle has a valid licence at the time of the accident.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in Iieu of chief examination and documents as Ext. A1 to Ext.A7 are marked. He was cross examined as
PW1.The document Ext.B1 is marked during the cross examination of the PW1. The Ext.A1 is a copy of the Registration certificate of the vehiclein the name of complainant, Ext.A2 is the original insurance policy., Ext.A3 is the certificate by the Kodakara police station, Ext.A4 is the copy of driving licence of Mr.Noushad C.A,Ext.A5, A6and A7 are bills dated 12.03.2019, 15.03.2019 and 15.03.2019 respectively. Mr. Noushad C.A. is examined as PW2.Ext.B1 is a copy of GD register dated 04.11.2018 of the KODAKARA police station.
The opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence but produced certain documents which are also marked as Ext.B2 to B5. The document Ext.B2 is the insurance Policy and Conditions, Ext.B3 is the copy of a certificate issued by Kodakara Police station dated 12.02.2019, Ext.B4 is the Repudiation Letter Dated 08.03.2019, Ext.B5 Driving licence
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant is entitled for insurance benefit?
2. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party
3. If so what is the relief?
For convenience, all the above issues are discussed together.
The specific case of the complainant is that his vehicle having a valid insurance policy, met with an accident and damaged, but the opposite party repudiated the insurance claim without any valid reason. The act of the opposite party is service deficiency and unfair trade practice. The vehicle met with an accident on 04.01.2018, while complainant’s friend Mr. Noushad.C.A was driving the vehicle to Thrissur. The above incident was reported to the concerned police station at Kodakara.
The opposite party admit that the vehicle is insured with them but the policy is issued subject to certain terms and condition. Their case is that it was not Mr. Noushad but the complainant himself was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. In the general diary entry of the Kodakara police station, that aspect is specifically mentioned also. Since Mr. AhammedSahad has no valid driving licence, approached the police authorities and gave an additional statement that it was Mr. Noushad CA, who drove the vehicle. It was an afterthought, in order to reap benefit of the insurance claim.The GD entry was documented immediately after the incident clearly shows that the complainant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The claim was denied for violation of the policy condition as the complainant who drove the vehicle has a valid licence at the time of the accident.
The opposite party mainly rely on the copy of GD Register of the Kodakara police station.Ext.B1 is a copy of GD register dated 04.11.2018 of the Kodakara police station, which shows to the effect that the complainant Mr. Sahad was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. But the complainant did not approve this document. During the cross examination, the complainant (PW1) deposed that the Ext.B1 is not based on any complaint filed by him. The opposite party did not prove the Ext.B1 by leading reliable evidence.
The complainant produced Ext.A3 which is a certificate by the Kodakara police station to show that it was Mr.Noushad C A, who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident. The Ext.A3 shows that the certificate was issued after investigation. The above mentioned Mr.Noushad C A was examined also to prove that aspect. The PW2 Mr.Noushad C A deposed before this court that it was he,who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident.Ext.A4 is the copy of driving licence of Mr. Noushad C.A.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this commission is of the view that the vehicle had a valid insurance at the time of the accident and as per the policy the complainant was entitled to get insurance benefit. The denial of the insurance benefit to the complainant is gross negligence and service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
The complainant submit that he suffered mental agony and monetary loss due to the illegal repudiation of the claim. He submit that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.3,50,000/- towards insurance benefit.
Even though the opposite party admitted the insurance policy as well as the accident, no surveyor was appointed to assess the damages in this case.
Only documents available before this commission to calculate the damages are Ext.A5, A6and A7 issued by the Bharath Vehicle Works, the work shop from where the vehicle was repaired after accident and produced by the complainant. The Ext.A5 is a Tax Invoice dated 12.03.2019, Ext.A6 and A7 are payment receipts dated 15.03.2019 and 15.03.2019 respectively.
Here Ext.A5 is a detailed computer-generated Tax invoice and Ext A6 is a payment receipt issued for settled amount. Ext.A7 isa bill for parking charge. These documents show that even though the Ext.A5 shows a higher amount, the matter has been settled to Rs.1,69,984/-. Therefore the document Ext.A6 can be accepted as a basis for fixing the insurance benefit.
The Ext.A1 the RC of the vehicle No.KL-14-U-5115 would show that the vehicle is made in the year 2017and the date of registration is 06.06,2017.
The accident is on 04.01.2018, which is within the period between 6 months and a year. Therefore, after calculating depreciation at the rate of 15%, the insurance amount would be Rs.1,54,500/-.
Regarding the compensation for the mental agony and hardships due to the denial of the insurance benefit in time, the complainant claims an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation. But there is no details and data of such a huge loss. This commission holds that Rs. 30,000/- would be a reasonable compensation.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.1,54,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) towards insurance benefit to the complainant, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from11.11.2019 , the date of complaint, till the date of payment. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)as cost.
The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Copy of Registration Certificate
A2: Original Insurance Policy
A3: Certificate by Kodakara Police Station
A4: Copy of Driving licence
A5- series: Tax invoice
A6: Receipt No.19007
A7: Receipt No.19008
B1: Copy of GD Registration
B2: Insurance Policy
B3: Copy of certificate issued by Kodakara Police
B4: Repudiation Letter
B5: Copy of Driving licence
Witness Cross examined
PW1:Ahammed Sahad M.K
PW2: Noushad C.A
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
