(1)

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE  27^TH DAY OF MAY 2013

C.C.NO.109/2008

K.Ravindran                                                   :           Complainant

(Rtrd. Executive Engineer, K.S.E. Board)

Ajai Bhavan

Kadappakada

Kollam-691 008

[By Adv.Abdul Azeez, Kollam]

1.      The Senior Divisional Manager     :           Opposite parties

National Insurance Company Ltd

Thiruvananthapuram Divisional Office

P.B.No.434-St.Joseph’s Press building

Vazhuthakkad

Thiruvananthapuram-695 014

2.      The Regional Manager

Regional Office

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Omana Buildings, Jews Street

Near Padma Junction

M.G. Road, Cochin

[By Adv.S.DileepKumar, Kollam]

            3.   The Manager

                  Popular Vehicles & Service Ltd

                  H&C Compound

      Mundakkal

      Kollam

ORDER

SMT. G.VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT

Complainants case is that his Maruti AC car having registration No.KL02W 5028 met with an accident on 17/7/2007 at 6.45 PM on the National Highway at Chathannoor at the curve between Royal Hospital and Ithikkara bridge which is an accident prone area, that as a result of the accident the vehicle got completely damaged and the driver survived with fatal injuries in the head and liver, that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance  Company  Ltd,  vide policy No. 1370616  from 1 3/09/2006  to

(2)

12/09/2007 Rs.1, 74,400/-and the accident occurred during the period of policy in force, that the insurance company has a branch at Kollam, and M/s Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd Mundakkal, Kollam are the authorised signatory of the insurance policy, that the accident was immediately reported to Chathannoor Police station and M/s Popular Vehicles & Services, Kollam who has removed the salvaged vehicle from police custody at Chathannoor to their workshop on 26/07/2007 and submitted an estimate dated 26/7/2007 for Rs.2,63,948.70 to M/s National Insurance Company Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram for repairs with copy to him, that it is clear from the estimate that the vehicle is beyond repairs as the original showroom price of the vehicle is only Rs.1,99,759.00, that Mr.Narayanan, Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance company, Thiruvananthapuram invited him for a meeting on 30/8/2007 for settling his claim in the presence of Manager R.P. Nair and Surveyor Sri. Murali Nair, that during discussion with the Manager & Surveyor, they said that they will sanction only Rs.          1,50,000/- considering it as total loss of the vehicle, saying that the re-sale value of Maruthi 800AC is comparatively low, that when he insisted on the full value of the Insurance of Rs.1, 74,400/-, he was taken to the Divisional Manager and as decided by him he has given the letter of acceptance for settling the claim for Rs.1,60,000/- to avoid further delay in settling the case and consequent loss to him, that he has also given him a consent letter form to be filled after getting the salvage price of the vehicle for Rs.40,000/- from the salvage purchaser who will be arranged by Sri.Murali Nair and he has given him his mobile number for this purpose, that following this, after two days a salvage purchaser called him for a sale deed to be executed in his favour for Rs.40,000/- which would be paid on receipt of R.C Book after closing hire purchase account with S.B.T. Jerome Nagar Kollam, that he could not agree to this as he was not having such a huge  amount  at present to pay off the full amount of the loan, that however when   he contacted the S.D.M  again he was told that the decision  of  payment of    compensation mutually  agreed  on  30/7/2007 for Rs.1,60,000/- on total loss basis has  been dropped and the Popular vehicle &  Services has  been requested  to arrange  repairs of  the   vehicle based   on  the  approved  list  of spares    amounting to    Rs.1,20,845.06

(3)

excluding labour charges, eliminating replacement body shell car for Rs.94,942.83and controlling assembly for Rs.14,222.20  which have been crushed  in the  accident and  the

authorised workshop who recommended replacement , that this approved spares list is updated, that undoubtedly the insurance company disowned their own decision taken on 30/8/2007, with the active connivance of the surveyor Sri.Murali Nair with  malice intention when the salvage disposal to his nominee was not materialized, that further the S.D.M. refused to meet him in his office and sent him out of his office room as he has not obtained prior permission, that he bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Court the audacity of the S.D.M refusing to meet his client aged 79 traveling all the way  from Quilon to Trivandrum on the flimsy reason that he has not got prior appointment to meet him, that later after getting prior sanction when he met him on 16/10/2007 he requested him to carryout the terms of the settlement dated 30/8/2007 in letter and spirit, but the S.D.M Sri.Narayanan took a unilateral stand to disallow his payment of just compensation of Rs.1,74,400/- which is the estimated insurance claim of the vehicle totally damaged in the accident, that this is against law, principles of insurance and conditions of the policy issued by the company and required to be redressed through this Hon’ble Forum,  that he has received a letter dated 15/1/2008 from the S.D.M  informing that the claim can only be considered on repair basis and further asserted that he will be liable for loss and aggravation of loss due to delay in giving his consent, that he was really shocked mentally in his decision , that at this juncture he approached an advocate at Kollam and issued a notice dated 8/2/2008 to the officials of the Insurance company and M/S Popular vehicles demanding immediate and prompt action, that they received this notice but they did not send any reply and in this connection he again reminded the company that he will not give consent for repairs which will not bring the damaged vehicle back to the pre-occupied  condition and that he is entitled to get the amount of total loss of Rs.1,74,400/- on the following grounds, there is no consent letter admitting repairs from him except the letter of acceptance of proposal dated 30/8/2007 for Rs.1,60,000/- as agreed by both the parties on total loss basis, that  the vehicle   sustained total loss as agreed by the SDM on 30/8/2007 and this can be verified at site and he could not handover the salvages to the

(4)

salvage purchaser arranged by the Surveyor Sri.Murali Nair because he could not get the R.C book without closing the hire purchase account with S.B.T Jerome Nagar for Rs.

1, 70,000/- , the repair charges of the authorised workshop and that approved by the company are the same except the company eliminated the replacement of shell car and controlling assembly that were crushed in the accident, that the amount of these two items eliminated in the approved list is Rs.1, 09,164.03, and even after this heavy repairs which is costlier than the showroom price of the car, his wrecked car cannot be brought back to the pre-occupied condition and M/S Popular vehicles & Services have issued advocate notice to him to pay the liability incurred by them in connection with the accident. Since no reply this complaint.

            Ops 1 and 2 filed version contending that the complaint as framed is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts regarding the case, that the complaint is filed only to vex and harass this opposite party by misusing the authority of this Hon’ ble  Forum, that this opposite party had issued a comprehensive policy to the complainant for his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-2W/5028 with a sum insured of Rs.1,74,400/- for a period commencing from 13/09/2006 to 12/09/2007, that the complainant had reported a claim before the opposite party stating  that his vehicle met with an accident on 17/07/2007 at 6.45 pm near Royal Hospital, Chathanoor, while the vehicle was proceeding from Kollam to Trivandrum, that the opposite party thereafter issued a claim form to the complainant with a request to retransmit the same duly filled and signed along with the estimate from the repairer, that the complainant accordingly submitted the estimate from the repairer M/S Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. dated 26/07/2007 along with the claim form duly filled and signed by him, that this opposite party immediately on receipt of the claim form and the estimate from the complainant had deputed a Govt of India licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor Mr.M.Muraleedharan Nair for inspecting the damaged vehicle and for assessing the loss sustained to the complainants vehicle as per the policy condition, that the surveyor appointed by this opposite party had visited M/S Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd on

(5)

3/8/2007 and many days subsequent thereafter, where the damaged vehicle was kept for repairs, that the surveyor have examined the damaged vehicle in detail and had discussion

with a repairer and insured along with the 1^st opposite party in the course of the survey for the assessment of loss sustained to the damaged vehicle, that the complainant during the course of discussion had demanded for settling his claim on salvage loss basis, but as per the assessment made by the surveyor the total cost for repair basis is not exceeding 75 percent of the sum insured (IDV) given in the policy, that due to the above reason the surveyor expressed the inability to consider the demand made by the complainant for settling his claim on salvage loss basis , that though the difficulty about the demand of the complainant was properly explained to him by the surveyor as well as the first opposite party on subsequent discussions as well the complainant was very much adamant in settling his claim on salvage loss basis only and he was not at all amenable for the settlement on repair basis which is the only mode of settlement possible in this case as per the policy condition ,that though the reason for the inability in the settling the claim on salvage loss basis was properly explained to the complainant, he was repeatedly demanded for salvage loss settlement orally as well as in writing before this opposite party, that the allegation made in the complaint that the opposite party had agreed to settle the claim on total loss basis and had obtained a consent from the complainant for the total loss basis settlement are absolutely false and hence denied ,that it was only a suggestion made by the complainant himself before this opposite party during the course of discussion and also in his correspondence with this opposite party, which was not agreed at all by the 1^st opposite party or the Insurance Surveyor and loss assessor at any point of time , that no such assurance or commitment was given by the opposite party and the surveyor either during the course of survey or any time during the negotiations with the complainant, that the surveyor on his detailed examination of the damages sustained to the vehicle found that the entire damages caused to the vehicle is quite repairable without affecting the look and performance of the vehicle, that the surveyor accordingly submitted his report before this opposite party assessing the damages sustained to the vehicle on repair basis to a sum of Rs.1,14,969/- excluding the salvage value and a sum

(6)

of Rs.500/- towards excess, that the surveyor in the above interim survey report submitted by him had given the details of spare parts recommended for  replacement  by considering the depreciation, cost of spare parts, Vat and other taxes applicable , that the surveyor has further assessed the labour cost for the repair of the vehicle in his report submitted before the opposite party, that the report submitted by the surveyor is a very detailed report in every particulars about the mode of assessment made by him on repair basis, that the 1^st opposite party after receipt of the survey report had issued a work order to the repairer inorder to proceed with repair works in tune with the work order issued by this opposite party, that the repairer 3^rd opposite party on receipt of the work order issued by this opposite party had sent a letter to the complainant seeking his confirmation for carrying out the repair works on the basis of the work order issued by this opposite party, that the complainant again approached this opposite party reiterating his earlier demand for settlement of the claim on salvage loss basis but the opposite party expressed the difficulty in accepting his illegal demand stating the reason for the same, that this opposite party further requested the complainant to accord permission to the repairer for the written request given by the repairer seeking confirmation from the complainant for carrying out the repair works on the basis of the work order given by this opposite party, that the complainant during the above discussion informed the opposite party that, he is yet to receive any such request letter seeking confirmation from the repairer and he pretended total ignorance of the same , that the opposite party thereafter issued a letter to the complainant on 16/10/2007 attaching a copy of the request given by the repairer, that in the above said registered letter the opposite party requested the complainant to convey his consent immediately to the repairer for starting repair works of the vehicle, that the complainant was further remind about the delay in starting the repair works due to the indifferent attitude on his part and also about the liability on the part of the complainant for the delay caused in starting the repair works due to the adamant stand on his part, that the complainant is solely responsible for the damaged vehicle kept idle in the repairers workshop without effecting the repair works in time and also for the subsequent deteriorated condition if any caused to the damaged vehicle due to the delay in repairing the vehicle till date, that the complainant has no manner of right under the contract of

(7)

insurance to dictate the mode of settlement to be adopted by the insurance company in settling a claim payable under the insurance contract, that it is the absolute discretion and

prerogative of the insurer to choose the mode of settlement to be adopted in a claim in

accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, that the allegations and averments stated in the complaint that this opposite party had agreed the complainant for settling his claim on salvage loss basis is absolutely false and hence denied by this opposite party, that the opposite party never accepted or considered the loss sustained to the complainants vehicle on total loss basis as alleged by the complainant ,that the complainant in fact was not at all co-operating with this opposite party right from the beginning itself for carrying out the repair works and in settling the claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, that the non-settlement of the claim was only due to the illegal demand on the part of the complainant to settle his claim on salvage loss basis which was not acceptable to this opposite party, that there is no need at all for replacement of the body shell as pleaded by the complainant in the complaint, that the damages sustained to the body shell is perfectly repairable and the demand of the complainant for replacement of the body shell is totally unwarranted and the same is aimed for the purpose of strengthening his illegal demand for settling the claim on salvage loss basis, that the Govt of India licensed surveyor and loss assessors are the competent persons in the assessment of loss payable under an insurance claim as per the mandatory provisions of the insurance Act , that the loss assessed by the licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor alone is the basis for the quantum of loss payable under an insurance claim subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, that the complainant is entitled to get the loss indemnified as per the terms and conditions of the policy alone and he is not excepted to make a fortune out of a misfortune, that if at all the complainant is not satisfied and disputing the assessment of loss made by the surveyor in this case he has no manner of cause of action to dispute the veracity of the same in the time bound proceedings under the consumer Protection Act, that in such case the only option  open to the complainant is to approach a Civil Court in order to seek the relief of his grievances if any, that the complainant in  this case  is not entitled to seek any relief

(8)

against this opposite party, that the compensation claimed by the complainant against the opposite party under various heads are not allowable and payable and the same is lacking any legal bearings, that the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party since there no deficiency in the service performed by this respondent in deciding the claim lodged by the complainant, that there is no bonafides in the contentions of the complainant in the issue regarding jurisdiction under section 2(I) (g), 2 (I) © and 2(I) (h) of the Consumer Protection Act, that the complainant is bound to pay heavy compensatory cost to this opposite party for this type of frivolous and baseless tendency to vex the opposite party unnecessarily, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            3^rd opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint filed against the 3^rd opposite party is not  legally maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed, that in the nature of the case the complainant is not a consumer of the 3^rd opposite party, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party, that it is true that the complainants Maruti car bearing registration number KL-2W/5028 met with an accident on 17/7/2007 and  as a result of the accident, heavy damages was caused to the vehicle, that the vehicle was brought to the 3^rd opposite party’s workshop at the request of the complainant, that accordingly the opposite parties 1& 2 had sent surveyor to give a detailed report regarding the damage caused to the vehicle and the amount required for repairing the vehicle, that even though the insurance company had requested the complainant to give  consent for repairing the vehicle, the complainant had not given his consent for repairing the vehicle, that it is submitted that based on the report of the surveyor of the Insurance company , the insurance company issued the work order to this opposite party and the same has been intimated to the complainant also and since the complainant had not given the consent, the 3^rd opposite party sent registered letter to the complainant either to sanction the work or to remove the vehicle from the premises since long storage of the vehicle will cause further damage, that at present the third opposite party is not able to undertake the work since the vehicle is in a deteriorated stage due to heavy rusting and the vehicle is beyond repair, that the said estimate is   given  including the cost of the body shell as requested by the  complainant, that this opposite party had  

(9)

sent  reply to  the  notice issued  by the  complainant through his counsel, that  due to  the  dispute between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2, the 3^rd  opposite party had incurred loss and damages and for bringing the vehicle, as per the request of the complainant, to the premises of the 3^rd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party incurred an amount of Rs.2000/- as towing charges and the vehicle was brought from Chathannoor to Kollam , that similarly for keeping the vehicle in the workshop premises, the 3^rd opposite party is entitled to get minimum of Rs.100/- per day towards floor rent till the vehicle is removed from there, that similarly the 3^rd opposite party is entitled to get Rs.1000/- as estimate preparation charges and the complaint as against 3^rd opposite party is only to be dismissed.

The points for consideration are:-

(1). Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

(2). Reliefs and costs?

Even though opposite party 3 filed version, subsequently deleted from the party array since no relief sought against opposite party 3.

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence Exts P1 to P 20 and D1 to D5.

The Points:- It is the admitted case of the parties that, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL02W/5028 which was insured with the 1^st opposite party for a period commencing from 13/9/2006 to 12/9/2007 and which was met with an accident on 17/7/2007 near Royal Hospital, Chathannoor. On receipt of the claim form and estimate prepared by 3^rd opposite party, 1^st opposite party had appointed a Government of India licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor Mr.Muraleedharan for inspecting the vehicle and for assessing the extent of damages sustained. Estimate value is very high rather than the manufacturing value. The surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle in detail and had discussion with the repairer, opposite party 3 on 3/8/2007 and on many subsequent days. According to the complainant since cost of repair exceeds to a very high amount opposite party agreed to settle the claim as total loss and next question from the insurer was some deductions of claim from the insured value and at the end of (10)

(11)

array. The manager of Op3 while examined as DW2 would swear before the Forum that R§-fpsS kÀÆokv skâdn \n¶pw issue sNbvX letter BWv   Exbt.D3. Work order sâ basis  ]Wn-bp-¶-Xnsâ I¬skâv  Bh-i-y-s¸-«p-sIm­­v  Cjyq sNbvX seäÀ BWv.  Iw¹b\âv I¬kâv X¶nà  Bb-Xnsâ ASnØm\-

¯n 22/12/2007  hn­­pw Iw¹b\ân\v eäÀ sImSp¯p AXmWv Exbt.D4    Bb-Xn\pw response, complainant sâ    mK-¯p-\n¶pw D­­m-bnà      Bb-Xnsâ ASnØm\-¯n  23/01/2008  hn­­pw eäÀ Ab-¨p, AXmWv  Exbt.D5.  C³j-z-d³kv I¼\n-bn-se kÀtÆ-b-dpsS Ak-kvsaânsâ ASnØm\-¯nepÅ hÀ¡v HmÀUÀ Imcw ]Wn-bp-¶-Xn\v R§Ä A¶v X¿m-dm-bn-cp-¶p Body shell amä-W-sa¶v  , complainant sâ    request   DÅ-Xp-sI-­v complainant  sâ  written consent  In«msX hml\-¯nsâ Wn XpS-§p-bm³ \nÀÆm-l-an-Ãm-bn-cp-¶p.DW2 further states that now the damaged vehicle has been remaining in the damaged condition in an open yard for the last more than three years and as such now they were not in a position to complete the repair works on the basis of the work order issued in the year 2007, for the reason that there was chance of carrying substantial damages to the vehicle other than the accidental damages since the vehicle was exposed to sun and rain in an open yard for the last more than three years. In Ext.D1 report the surveyor also made a remarks that since the actual loss assessed in less than 75 percent of the sum insured, the salvage loss assessment as demanded by the complainant is not at all viable. At this juncture Ext.D2 letter also assumes much importance. Ext.D2 is a letter dated 16/10/2007 issued by opposite party to complainant informing him the work order issued to the repairer for repairing the vehicle on the basis of the assessment report of the surveyor and requested the complainant to issue consent letter to the repairer stating the repair work. In Ext.D2 letter it is further made clear that for any loss or delay due to the failure on the part of the complainant the insurance company would not be liable for the same.

discussion  an  agreement  was arrived  at by both  parties to settle  for an  amount  of   Rs. 1, 60,000/- including salvage value of Rs.40, 000/- and letter of acceptance also given but thereafter opposite party informed that the vehicle will be repaired by opposite party 3 replacing spare parts only approved by them to an amount of Rs.1,14,969/-. This belated decision of the opposite party refusing total damage is unfair. But according to opposite party when the surveyor examined the damages sustained to the vehicle in detail have found that the total cost of repair assessed by him is not exceeding 75% of the sum insured and so the demand made by the complainant is not legally acceptable and the surveyor explained the above aspect to the complainant and during the course of discussion with opposite party 3 they have fully agreed to repair the vehicle perfectly without changing the body shell but the complainant was very much adamant in settling his claim on salvage loss basis and was not amenable for settling the claim on repair basis which is the only possible mode of settlement as per the policy terms and conditions.

            The surveyor in his report Ext D.1 has clearly mentioned about the value of spare parts required for replacement after considering the depreciation cost and the labour charges etc. In this case the real dispute is between the estimate and survey report. So the crucial question to be considered is whether the assessment of loss made by the licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor in statutorily acceptable or not in deciding the actual loss sustained to the complainant for his vehicle. Opposite party 3 has given Ext. P3 estimate for replacement of the body shell worth Rs.94942/- and controller assembly worth Rs.14222.20. But when the surveyor examined the damages he was of the opinion that the damages sustained to the body shell is quiet repairable and there is no necessity for changing the body shell. During the alleged discussion also opposite party 3 has fully agreed to repair the vehicle without changing the body shell. In this respect ExtsD3, D4 and D5 assumes much importance. In the above letters the repairer, opposite party 3 has expressed their willingness to repair the vehicle on the basis of the work order Ext P7 issued by the opposite party. In Ext P7 opposite party has not included change of body shell but only included change of damaged parts of the body shell alone manufactured by the manufacturer of the vehicle. In the version of Op3it is stated that body shell included in the estimate as requested by the complaint subsequently. Op3 deleted from the party

The surveyor who filed Ext  D1 report was examined as DW3. Nothing was brought out in his cross examination to discredit the witness. Ext.P7 work order issued by the opposite party shows that the surveyor has examined each and every damaged portion of the vehicle in part by part and has ascertained the parts required for replacement for repairing the damaged vehicle in his detailed examination and the same is properly listed

in Ext.P7. It is well settled that ‘a surveyors report, which is required to be made under section 64.UM (2)   of the Insurance Act 1938, is an important document and its non-consideration results in serious miscarriage of justice and vitiates the judgment rendered by the commission’. In 2011 CPJ volume IV at page 323 it has been held that “the principle of indemnity underlying an Insurance Policy does not permit complete renewal of the bus body when appropriate repairs would reinstate the insured bus to its pre-accident status. The surveyors assessment based on such repairs cannot be thrown overboard merely on the ground that insured complainant choose instead to get the bus body completely replaced”.

            At this juncture another question to be considered is whether there was an agreement settling the claim for Rs.1, 60,000/- . The above agreement is dinied by OP’s 1 and 2. Ext P6 is a document produced by the complainant claiming to be a consent letter for settling the claim under salvage loss or cash loss basis. That was marked subject to proof since opposed by Op’s 1 and 2. We have perused Ext.P6. It is a document without any date, seal and signature etc.  Complainant as PW1 would swear before the Forum that “Cu s¢bnsaâv  \mfn-Xp-hscbpÅ procedure  CXv Hcp tSm«Â temÊv Btbm Imjv temÊv Btbm s¢wbnw skän sN¿m-sa¶v seäÀ X¶n-«pt­m? seäÀ X¶n-«nÔ . So the case of the opposite party that they have not made an offer for settlement of the claim as demanded by the complainant cannot be brushed aside. DW1 also deposed before the Forum that the demand made by the complainant for settling the claim on salvage loss basis or total loss basis is not acceptable as per the policy condition since the damage assessed by the sarveyor is less than 75% of the insured value of the vehicle.

            In 2009 CPJ Volume IV page 258 National Commission held that “insurer is liable to pay actual value of the new parts minus Depreciation”. In the case on hand the

(13)

surveyor has assessed the damage sustained to the vehicle by considering the parts required for repairing the vehicle by replacing the damaged parts. The surveyor has considered the actual market value of the parts damaged less depreciation plus reasonable cost of fitting and labour charges.  The insurer is liable to pay actual  value of the new  parts minus depreciation. At this juncture it is to be noted that the opposite party is liable to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor only if the complainant has completed the repair work and produced the repair bill before the insurance company. Here it is in evidence that the repairer was prevented from doing the repair works due to the non co-operation of the complainant. Even though it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced in this case the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,14969/-+ Rs.14222.20 mentioned in the estimate for replacement of controller  assembly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1, 29,191.20. The order is to be complied with within 60 days from today, in default it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to compensation and cost. 

Dated this the 27^th day of May 2013

G.VASANTHAKUMARI:Sd/-

ADV.RAVISUSHA:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

I N D EX                                                                   

1. List of witness for the complainant

     PW.1 :- K.Raveendran

2. List of Documents  for the complainant

(14)

Exbt.P1:-FIR Report Copy

Exbt.P2:- insurance Certificate copy

Exbt.P3:- Estimate of repairs

Exbt.P4:- Popular Vehicles and Services Invoice

Exbt.P5:- Letter from K.Ravindran to Senior Divisional Manager National Insurance Company dated 30/8/2007

Exbt.P6:- Consent letter

Exbt.P7:- Approved parts

Exbt.P8:- Letter from K.Ravindran to Senior Divisional Manager National               

            Insurance Company dated 24/10/2007

Exbt.P9:- Letter from K.Ravindran to Senior Divisional Manager National               

            Insurance Company dated 01/10/2007

Exbt.P10:- Letter from National Insurance Company dated 15/01/2008

Exbt.P11:- Letter from Abdul Azeez & Associates dated 8/2/2008

Exbt.P12:- Letter from George Mathew dated 25/3/2008

Exbt.P13:- Certificate of Registration

Exbt.P14:- Photo copy of damaged vehicle

Exbt.P15:- Letter from National Insurance Company dated 12/8/2006

Exbt.P16:- Letter from K.Ravindran dated 4/9/2007

Exbt.P17:- Letter from K.Ravindran dated 21/9/2007

Exbt.P18:- Postal Acknowledgement receipt

Exbt.P19:- Postal Acknowledgement receipt dated 03/10/07

Exbt.P20:- Postal Acknowledgement receipt dated 26/10/07

3. List of witness for the opposite party

DW1:-R.P.Nair

Exbt.D1:- Letter from M.Muralidharan Nair D.M.E, F.I.I.S.A dated 17/09/07

Exbt.D2:- Letter from National Insurance Company dated 16/10/07

DW2:- Nisha .A.S

Exbt.D3:- Letter from Popular Vehicles and Services dated 06/01/07  

(15)

Exbt.D4:- Letter from Popular Vehicles and Services dated 22/12/07

DW3:-M.Muralidharan Nair

Exbt.D5:- Letter from Popular Vehicles and Services dated 23/01/08