DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 07/09/2019
CC/222/2019
TMT Granites Pvt Ltd., - Complainant
Mangalam Dam,
Alathur, Palakkad.
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Tom George, S/o.George,
Residing at Kizhakkeparambil House, Chittadi,
Mangalam Dam.
(BY Advs. M P Ravi & M J Vince)
Vs
1.The Manager,
M/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
P.L.I Branch, Soorya Complex, Mission High
School Junction, T.B.Road, Palakkad.
2. The Divisional Manager, - Opposite Parties
M/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
P.L.I Branch, Soorya Complex, Mission High
School Junction, T.B.Road, Palakkad.
(BY Adv.Rathnavally P).
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle H.G.V Tipper bearing Reg:No-KL-49-C 5257 which was duly insured with the opposite party as per policy number 1012013117P113821944 issued in the name of the complainant. On 16.04.2018, while the tipper lorry was parked in the company premises, it was hit by another lorry bearing Reg.No. KL-49-C-5420 while taking reverse. Due to the accident the front grill, radiator, driver cabin, and doors were damaged and Mangalam Dam Police has registered a case against the driver of the lorry bearing No. KL-49-C-5420 as crime No.223/2018 U/Sec279 IPC.
A claim was lodged by the complainant to the opposite party for the damages sustained to the vehicle and the damages were noted by their surveyor. The vehicle was repaired by T V S Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Pvt Ltd, Palakkad and a sum of Rs.5,38,485/- has been incurred for repair. Detailed bills were submitted along with claim form.
At the time of the accident the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle and he made own damage claim to the opposite party on that basis and he is entitled to get it. Inspite of complainant’s repeated demands, the opposite party did not settle the claim. It amounts to clear Deficiency in service on their part and against the policy terms and conditions. Because of the opposite party’s conduct, the complainant suffered mental agony and physical strain. So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,00/- as compensation for their Deficiency in service apart from the claim amount.
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed version.
3. Pleadings of the opposite parties in their version.
The opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable due to the reason that the incident was not reported to the company. They are totally unaware of the incident which took place in a private place. No claim form or request for appointing a surveyor was made by the complainant. The opposite parties did not receive any documents filed along with the complaint and the complaint is premature in nature and the complainant has no locus standi to file it. There is no Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as it comes only after repudiation of claim.
The surveyor has not intimated his visit for inspection before conducting it. As per surveyor’s report, (which the opposite party’s received only along with this complaint) the estimate was for Rs.5,21,927/-, but the assessment was for Rs.2,96,317/- based on the condition of the vehicle.
This fact is suppressed in the main complaint and the total assessment made by the surveyor is not seen anywhere. It is an old vehicle registered on 02.02.2012 and the intention of the complainant is to repair the vehicle as a new one and to claim the amount from the insurance company taking advantage of the accident. The assessment made by the surveyor was to restore the vehicle to its original condition. But the complainant has repaired the entire vehicle to produce the same for fitness certificate. The bills produced by the complainant are not pertaining to the damage caused to the vehicle at the time of the accident.
As per the policy conditions, it is necessary to submit a claim form with necessary details and after completion of work, final report has to be prepared and the original bills have to be submitted for sanctioning the eligible amount and this is not complied by the complainant and there is no cause of action to claim the amount. There is no Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the claim is not repudiated and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant has intimated the opposite parties about the
incident and submitted necessary documents for processing the claim or
whether it is premature in nature?
2. Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs, as cost & compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and Ext A1 to A9 marked on the side of the complainant (A7 & A8 are in series).
The opposite parties also filed Proof Affidavit. No documents were marked from their side and evidence closed. Opposite party filed notes of argument.
6. Point No 1
The opposite party admits that the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-49-C-5257 which is insured with the opposite parties vide policy no. 1012013117P113821944 for the period from 03.01.2018 to 02.01.2019.
The opposite parties in their affidavit has stated that they are totally unaware of the incident which took place in a private place and no demand notice was issued by the complainant. No claim form or request for appointing a surveyor was made by the complainant. Without filing of a claim form, the opposite parties are unable to consider the losses suffered by the complainant. So the complaint is premature in nature and the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.
The complainant has stated in his affidavit that in spite of his repeated requests to pay compensation, the opposite parties did not pay the amount expended by him in repairing the vehicle. But the complainant did not produce the repudiation letter from the opposite parties, rejecting his claim. He produced some other of documents and marked in evidence. In the absence of repudiation letter which is the crucial document in proving the contention of the complainant, the contention put forth by the opposite parties that they were unaware of the incident and no claim is submitted by the complainant appears to be more convincing.
Points 2 to 4
7. In the absence of submission of claim form with necessary documents, the question of repudiation of claim did not arise. Only when a genuine claim is repudiated, deficiency in service can be attributed on the opposite party. Here no such repudiation happened casting Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has no case that his grievance pertains to undue delay in processing of his claim. So the claim is premature in nature.
Further the opposite parties contend in their affidavit that the complainant’s vehicle was not having valid fitness at the time of the incident. In order to entertain the claim, the vehicle should have valid fitness as per the provisions of MV Act and it is clearly mentioned in the policy itself. They further contend that absence of fitness certificate is a fundamental breach from the side of insured and it will lead to a situation that vehicle will not be deemed as having a permit.
8. From the surveyor’s report which is marked as Ext A9, it can be seen under the heading VEHICLE PARTICULAS (K) fitness certificate no.2695/2017 valid upto 12.01.2018.
So on the date of the accident ie. on 16.04.2018, the complainant’s vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate. As per Sec.56 of the MV Act No vehicle can be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Sec.39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness. Here the vehicle has no valid fitness on the date of the accident and, as such, the vehicle cannot be said to be validly registered for the purposes of Sec.39 of M.V Act.
So even in the case where the complainant’s claim was rejected by the opposite party, as per his contention there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in repudiating the claim as the vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate which is against the policy time & conditions.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 2nd day of September, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1–Copy of FIR dated 24.04.2018.
Ext. A2–Copy of Vehicle Tax receipts dated 31.07.2017.
Ext. A3-Copy of Vehicle permit dated 03.06.2017.
Ext.A4-Copy of policy dated 03.01.2018 issued by OPs.
Ext.A5-Copy of Registration certificate dated 17.08.2015.
Ext.A6-Estimate dated 03.05.2018.
Ext.A7- Tax Invoice bill dated 07.07.2018.
Ext.A8 (series 20 nos.)- Photographs of vehicle accident date 04.05.2018.
Ext.A9- Survey report dated 30.09.2018.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties :Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: NIL.
