IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 24th day of January, 2024
Filed on: 30.09.2023
Present
- Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.286/2023
between
Complainant:- | Opposite Party:- |
Sri. Anto Alphonse The Manager,
S/o Alphonse Antony United India Insurance Company Ltd
Alphonse Villa, Pandankary.P.O Branch Office, Aroor, 2nd Floor
Edathua, Alappuzha-689 572 Bhamas Towers, Above VTJ Hundai
(Adv. E.D.Zacharias) Showroom, NH Bye pass, Aroor P.O
Cherthala, Alappuzha-688534
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLY.P.R (PRESIDENT IN CHARGE)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. Complainant’s case briefly stated is as follows:-
The complainant is the policy holder of Motor Insurance Policy issued by the opposite party vide policy No. 1013043132P103894419 which starts from 29/7/2022 to 28/7/2023 for the vehicle bearing Reg No. KL.66-D-1056. The insurance policy would cover own damage of the vehicle and third party property damage.
The said vehicle was driven by the driver named Shona T Mathai and on 18/1/2023 while he was driving the vehicle one opposite vehicle plied through the wrong side of the vehicle driven by Shona.T.Mathai and the driver suddenly turned the vehicle to avoid a clash of vehicles and the vehicle driven by Shona T Mathai hit at the electric post and this accident happened at Karukachal. The said vehicle got damaged and the vehicle damage amount of Rs.4,13,491/- was settled by the opposite party. Apart from this immediately after the accident the complainant has submitted third party property damage claim on 26/1/2023 with all documents. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.11,877/- towards the value of electric post and the labour charge in which the value of the electric post is Rs. 6,317/- and the labour charge is Rs. 5,560/-. The opposite party deliberately did not settle the third party property damage. The opposite party ought to have settled the third party property damage.
Instead of settling the claim amount of Rs.11,877/-, the opposite party simply returned the claim form and all documents submitted by the complainant. There is no reason for returning the file. At the time of accident, the vehicle has valid motor claim for own damage and third party property damage. Further the driver has valid licence to drive the vehicle. The opposite party has no right to return the claim form to the complainant without disclosing the reason. At the time of admission in the policy, the opposite party and its men made the complainant believe that own damage and third party property damage would be covered by the policy. The opposite party has deliberately returned the claim form of the complainant without any reason and sufficient grounds. The acts of the opposite party are perse illegal, illmotivative , bias, ultravires and not in good faith and the complainant has caused mental agony, frustration, inconvenience and monetary loss and the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
After the submission of the claim form and original of all documents the complainant has contacted the opposite party on several times and demanded the amount and the opposite party informed that the claim is under process but they deliberately withhold the amount and returned the claim form without any grounds. The complainant has directly and over telephone contacted the opposite party and in fact the opposite party mocked and harassed the complainant and returned the claim form. There is grave dereliction of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence filed this complaint to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs. 11,877/- with 12% interest to the complainant along with Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, frustration, inconvenience , disgrace, difficulties, loss of time etc..
In response to the complaint the opposite party did not responded though the notice along with the complaint duly served to the opposite party. Hence proceed with exparte.
2. Points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for in the complaint?
4. Reliefs and costs?
3. Points 1 to 3:-
Since the opposite party did not respond the complaint even after received the notice from this Commission the case is proceed with exparte and thereby the complainant filed proof affidavit along with 9 documents. The documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A9. The complainant’s case is that the complainant is a policy holder of motor insurance policy issued by opposite party vide policy No. 1013043132P103894419 during the period from 29/7/2022 to 28/7/2023 for his vehicle Mahindra and Mahindra load King Tipper bearing Reg .No. KL-66-D-1056 covering own damage of the vehicle and 3rd party property damage. While happened an accident by the said vehicle and caused damage to the electric post at Karukachal, the opposite party did not settled the 3rd party property claim filed by the complainant.
The accident happened on 18/1/2023, within the policy period and the claim form along with all necessary documents submitted on 26/1/2023 to the opposite party.
But the opposite party did not settle or reject the claim of third party property. Instead of settling the said claim the opposite party returned the claim form without mentioned any reason and sufficient ground. At the time of admission of the policy, the opposite party and its men made the complainant believe that own damage and third party property damage would be covered by the policy. Against which the opposite party had returned the claim form without settling the claim, in which alleging deficiency in service, dereliction of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party, this complaint filed to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs. 11,877/- with interest @ 12% per annum along with compensation Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.
Ext.A1 is the copy of insurance policy to the vehicle bearing Reg No.KL.66-D-1056 owned by the complainant during the period from 29/7/2022 to 28/7/2023 covering own damage and third party liability. Ext.A2 is the OD claim form submitted by the complainant to opposite party for an amount of Rs. 11,877/- in which on the bottom of the said document it was written as “OD claim already settled Rs. 4,13,491/-”. Ext.A3 is the receipt issued by KSEB, Karukachal Section dtd. 25/1/2023. Ext.A4 is the estimate prepared by KSEB Electric Section Karukachal along with letter issued to the complainant demanding its remittance. Ext.A5 is the receipt of payment of labour charge dtd. 18/1/2023. Ext.A6 to A9 are the documents related to the disputed vehicle.
Considering the above facts, on evaluation of the entire documents it is understood that the vehicle owned by the complainant having Reg No.KL.66-D-1056 caused some damages to the electric post owned by KSEB, Electrical Section Karukachal on 18/1/2023 while driven by its driver named Sri. Shona.T. Mathai for which KSEB estimated the damages for Rs. 11,860/- and on 14/3/2023 they sent a letter along with an undated estimate to the complainant to pay the said amount. It is shown from Ext.A3 and A5 that the complainant had paid the said amount to KSEB office being the cost of post and allied materials on 25/1/2023 and to M/s Kristhuraj Engineering on 18/1/2023 being the labour charge.
In this regard it is to be noted that the main question of law arose is that whether the complainant is having locus standi to file this complaint before this Commission in the circumstances involved. According to the statute with regard to the Motor Accident and its consequential matters, especially all third party related claim are dealt with by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Hence the claims need to be filed in the Local Tribunal Court, where the compensation will be decided or rejected after taking into account the submitted documents as well as the story from both sides. 3rd party is the claimant or person who raises a claim for damages caused by the first party, insured.
There is no doubt that in the third party insurance the insurer offers protection against damage to the third party vehicle, personal property and physical injury. And as per law Special Tribunals constituted for determining the questions involved. Accordingly the KSEB, Karukachal Section has locus standi to file a third party claim against the insurer and insured for compensation to the damage sustained to their property. In the said circumstances we are not found any deficiency in service on the side of opposite party in determining the claim submitted by the complainant and hence the complainant is not entitled the reliefs sought for in the complaint. These points are answered accordingly.
4. Point No.3:-
In the result complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 24th day of January, 2024.
Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Anto Alphonse (complainant)
Ext.A1 - Policy Certificate
Ext.A2 - Claim form
Ext.A3 - Receipts dtd. 25/1/2023
Ext.A4 - Estimate,
Ext.A5 - Letter dtd. 18/1/2023
Ext.A6 - Driving Licence
Ext.A7 - Certificate of Registration
Ext.A8 - Tax Payment Receipt
Ext.A9 - Tax Licence
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Typed by:- Br/- Assistant Registrar
Compared by:-
