D.O.F:07/12/2018
D.O.O:17/08/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.200/2018
Dated this, the 17th day of August 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The Managing Director
Kasaragod Eco Industrial Park and Tourism Ltd : Complainant
Vikas Bhavan, Madhur Road,
P.O. Kasaragod – 671121.
(Adv: A. Balakrishnan Nair)
And
The Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office, : Opposite Party
P.M. Taj Road, Calicut.
(Adv: C. Damodaran)
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 purchased a Maruthi car on 05-01-2017 and registered the same on 10.01.2017 with No - KL 14 -T -7476. The Vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The Complainant purchased the car in Tourist Taxi quota for self employment and did not use it for any commercial purpose. But since normally the original RC is issued only after 30 days of registration he could not file application for Tourist Permit. The tax for motor cab (Taxi) was paid for the period 5-1-2017 to 3-12-2022.The above car met with an accident on 28-01-2017. At that time the vehicle was run only 270 km. including test driving, transport to and fro from showroom and also for registration and inspection purpose. The complainant filed a claim for damage and on the basis of the Surveyor's report, he agreed for salvage settlement scheme. The opposite party directed him to submit an affidavit as per the format supplied and accordingly he filed an affidavit with a condition to cancel the Insurance with effect from 28.01.2017 the date of accident .The opposite party also obtained an advance receipt for Rs .3,43,996/- from the financer M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Fin.co. Ltd. for releasing the hypothecation. But the opposite party neither disbursed the agreed amount of Rs.3,43,996/-nor repudiated the claim .The complainant is paying regularly the instalments to the financer to avoid accumulation of interest. After getting the consent letter for salvage value loss assessed, the opposite party cancelled the insurance policy as on 28/01/2017 and failed to remit the amount to the account of the complainant
with the financer. The act of the opposite party is service deficiency and unfair trade practice due to which the Complainant suffered heavy loss and hardships. The complainant estimates his Ioss as Rs.3,43,996/- the salvage value, along with Rs.1,00,000/- being the damages . Hence this complaint.
The opposite party entered appearance through their counsel who filed written Version.
As per the version of the Opposite Party , the complaint is false vexatious and as such unsustainable at Iaw . It is stated that the complainant is a profit making company the use of vehicle also for the purpose of making profit and not for individual lively hood. The complainant's claim could not be considered due to the violation of Section.66 of MV Act and fragment violation of a material Policy condition. The validity of permit is from 07-04-2017 only. The allegation that the vehicle was not used for commercial purpose is denied. There was 2 passengers at the time of accident. To ply a vehicle on the public road a permit is mandatory. Receiving affidavit, advance receipt and consent letter are part of own damage claim Settlement only to avoid delay in payment in aIIowable claims.
There is no service deficiency on the part of the opposite party .The repudiation is quite legal .The complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents
Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 6 are marked .The Ext - A1 is the copy of RC book . Ext - A 2 is the copy of the insurance Policy. Ext. A3 is the letter dated 15-09-2017 issued to the Opposite Party, Ext A4 is the copy of letter dated 07-10-2017 issued to the Opposite Party, Ext. A 5 is the copy of consent letter issued by the complainant. Ext. A 6 is the copy of letter issued by Finance company to the Opposite Party.
The Opposite party adduced no oral evidence but produced certain documents which are marked as Ext .B 1 to B 6.Ext. B1 is the Satisfaction certificate signed by the complainant. Ext B2 is the policy Certificate, Ext. B3 is the Letter dated 15-09-2017 issued by the opposite Party to complainant. Ext. B4 is the Postal acknowledgement card. Ext B5 is the claim form. Ext. B6 is the estimation details, Ext. B 7 is the copy of the permit.
Thereafter, the Complainant reopened the evidence and adduced further evidence by examining PW 2 and PW 3. and producing certain documents which are marked as Ext. A 7 to A14.Ext. A 7 is the work sheet Dated 8-12-2016 from KVR cars, Kasaragod, Ext. A 8 is the work sheet Dated 27-12-2016 from KVR cars, Kasaragod, Ext A9 is KG Bank pass book for the period 30/10/2015 to 21-01-2017, Ext. A 10 KG Bank pass book, for the period 23-01-2017 to 27-12-2017, Ext A11 is the Cash/ Credit bill issued from Laxmi Devi Auto garage, Amballur, Ext .A 12 is the Insurance policy Package, Ext. A 13 is the Insurance Policy certificate, Ext 'A 14 is the proposal form for Insurance Policy
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following
issues are framed for consideration.:
1 . Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party ?
2 . If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that he purchased a Maruthi car on 05-01-2017 and registered the same on 10.01. 2017 with No - KL 14 -T -7476. The Vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The Complainant purchased the car in Tourist Taxi quota for self employment and did not use it for any commercial purpose. But since normally the original RC is issued only after 30 days of registration he could not file application for Tourist Permit. The tax for motor cab (Taxi) was paid for the period 5-1-2017 to 3-12-2022.The above car met with an accident on 28-01-2017.At that time the vehicle was run only 270 km. including test driving, transport to and fro from show room and also for registration and inspection purpose. The complainant filed claim for damage and on the basis of the Surveyor's report , he agreed for salvage settlement scheme. The opposite party directed him to submit an affidavit as per the format supplied and accordingly he filed an affidavit with a condition to cancel the Insurance with effect from 28.01.2017 the date of accident .The opposite party also obtained an advance receipt for Rs .3,43,996/- from the financer M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Fin.co. Ltd. for releasing the Hypothecation. But the opposite party neither disbursed the agreed amount of Rs.3,43,996/- nor repudiated the claim .The complainant is paying regularly the instalments to the financer to avoid accumulation of interest . After getting the consent letter for salvage value loss assessed, the opposite party cancelled the insurance policy and failed to remit the amount to the account of the complainant with the financer. The act of opposite party is service deficiency and unfair trade practice due to which the Complainant suffered heavy loss and hardships.
As per the version of the opposite party the complaint is false vexatious and as such unsustainable at Iaw . It is stated that the complainant is a profit making company the use of vehicle also for the purpose of making profit and not for individual lively hood. The complainant's claim could not be considered due to the violation of Section.66 of MV Act and fragment violation of a material Policy condition. The validity of permit is from 07-04-2017 only. The allegation that the vehicle was not used for commercial purpose is denied. There was 2 passengers at the time of accident. To ply a vehicle
on the public road a permit is mandatory. Receiving affidavit, advance receipt and consent letter are part of own damage claim Settlement only to avoid delay in payment in aIIowable claims. There is no service deficiency on the part of the opposite party .The repudiation is quite legal .The complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
From the above discussion it can be seen that the main dispute raised by the opposite party is that at the time of the accident there was no permit for the Vehicle and hence they are not Iiable to pay the amount. The opposite party argues that there is violation of Section 66 of MV Act. The Section 66 of MV Act provides that no owner of a Motor vehicle shall use the Vehicle or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place, whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods etc. but Section66 (3) Proviso (a ) and (p) clearly state that the vehicle can be put on road for the purpose of access or to any place for purpose of repair. In this case the complainant states that there was no passengers in the vehicle other than the owner and the driver and the vehicle was went to work shop for putting some additional luxuries to the Vehicle.
Their further case is that the vehicle is used for making profit. In their version opposite party contented that there were two passengers in the vehicles in the vehicle, for which there is no evidence. The opposite party didn't care to prove their contentions by adducing reliable evidence.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that he had paid Road Tax and also covered with insurance and there for he can put the vehicle on road since it is temporarily registered .Here the Vehicle was registered permanently but the RC was not obtained due to procedural delay. Further contention of the complainant is that he could not submit application for Tourist Permit due to non receipt of the original RC from the authorities.
The PW 3 deposed before this commission that without getting the original RC application for getting Tourist Permit cannot be submitted. He further deposed that they have collected the amount for remitting the fee from the complainant , for obtaining the taxi permit but could not file the application for that since the RC is not received from the authority by that time. Here there is no evidence to show that the complainant was in receipt of the original RC book from the authorities at that time. So it is evident that there is no willful latches on the part of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the accident occurred within the span of 3 weeks of its purchase. He had a Temporary Permit issued from the authority which is marked as Ext.B8, which shows that the vehicle is permitted to run through all roads in Kerala state except those prohibited by any law in force. The opposite party has no case that the complainant had run the vehicle beyond the limit of the permitted route. Admittedly the accident occurred in a place called Parappa with in the state of Kerala. No evidence to show that it is used for any commercial purpose. Even though the opposite party stated in their version that there was two passengers in the vehicle, it was not proved by adducing reliable evidence.
The complainant further submit that the opposite party insisted him to prepare and file an affidavit in a given form, for Salvage settlement. But the opposite party didn't care to disburse the amount .The opposite party has no case that the Vehicle is not insured at the time of accident. But they repudiated the claim of insurance amount, raising some technical arguments. But they could not prove their contentions by adducing reliable evidence. Therefore there is no justification for evading the payment of the amount. Therefore in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled for the amount claimed.
Another aspect come to light during evidence is regarding the repair of the vehicle. Since the Opposite Party withdrawn from salvage settlement, the complainant repaired the vehicle and filed this complaint. The opposite party tried to prove that the vehicle was repaired from KVR service centre at Mailatty. The opposite party’s counsel confronted the Pw1 with a document Ext B1 during cross examination. But the Pw1 deposed that the signature obtained was in a blank paper. Complainant’s case is that the vehicle was repaired from Lakshmi Devi Auto Garage at Amballur. To prove that the complainant examined Pw2, the workshop Manager of KVR service centre Mailatty, who deposed that they had not repaired the complainant’s vehicle and the Ext B1 documents is not a genuine document. The complainant produced documents Ext A9 to A11 to prove the details of expenses incurred to him for the repair of the vehicle at Lakshmi Devi Auto Garage, Amballur.
Complainant’s produced documents Ext 9 and Ext 10 the bank pass books and Ext A11 the cash/credit bill issued by the Lakshmi Devi Auto Garage, Amballur.. which shows that he had spent a total amount of Rs. 3,86,600/- towards the charge of repairing the damaged vehicle. Even though the opposite Party disputed the documents Ext A11, they have not taken any steps to disprove the document. So there is no ground to reject the document Ext A11.
But this commission is not inclined to allow the entire amount shown in Ext A11. Since the complaint is filed for Rs. 3,43,996/- towards damages. So that amount can be allowed.
Therefore considering circumstances and facts available evidence in this case , this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and suffering apart from monetary loss.
The Opposite Party is liable to compensate for the mental agony and sufferings .The Complainant states that he had sustained a damage of Rs.1,00,000/- due to the mental agony and sufferings but there is no reliable data . The complainant also seeks the repayment of balance insurance premium with effect from 28/01/2017. But the quantum of that amount is not here. Considering all these aspects, the commission is of the view that Rs. 30,000/- will be a reasonable amount of compensation.
ln the result , the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,43,996/- to the Complainant with 8% interest per annum from 07.12.2018, the date of complaint till payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) towards compensation andRs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only), towards the costs.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the Judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of R.C book
A2- Copy of Insurance policy
A3- A Letter dated 15/09/2017
A4- The copy of letter Dt: 07/10/2017
A5- Consent letter
A6- A letter Dt: 13/11/2018
A7 & A8- Work sheet
A9 & A10- Pass book
A11- Cash/Credit bill
A12-Insurance policy package
A13- Insurance policy
A14- Proposal form for insurance policy
B1- Satisfaction certificate
B2- Policy certificate
B3- Letter Dt: 15/09/2017
B4- Postal Acknowledgment card
B5- Claim form
B6- Estimation details
B7-Contract carriage permit
Witness Examined
Pw1- T.V. Gangadharan
Pw2- Sreejesh.K
Pw3- Shamnas.K
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
