IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 27th day of August, 2020.
Filed on 13-06-2018
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.157/2018
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Thomas P.J United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Paadiyathara Room No.3, First Floor, Building 30/1273
Punnapra P.O. Jas.A.R, Bypass Road, Vytila,
Alappuzha- 688 004 Ernakulam- 682019
(By Adv.V.Vijayakumar) Rep. by its Manager
(By Adv.T.S Suresh)
ORDER
C.K. LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief facts of complainant’s case are as follows:-
The complainant’s vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-63C-4727 was insured (Policy No.1013823116P114792558) with opposite party for the period from 04-02-2017 to 03-02-2018. While so the vehicle met with accident on 25-09-2017 and required for repairing. The same was intimated to the opposite party and assured that complainant is eligible to get claim for repair. The vehicle was brought to Maruthi Showroom at Ernakulam for repairs. Surveyor of the opposite party inspected the vehicle and allowed to repair the vehicle. Expense of the repair arrived at Rs.64,041/-. The complainant remitted said amount himself to the service centre. The claim was lodged with the opposite party along with all related documents. But it was repudiated by opposite party vide letter dated 07-12-2017 stating that at the time of accident vehicle has no valid fitness certificate. Therefore, they are not amenable to give claim amount. Due to the deficiency in service by opposite party, complainant suffers mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting repairing expense, compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version of the opposite party is that :-
The complainant is not a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act. Vehicle is using for commercial purpose. Opposite party admitted policy of the vehicle in question. They averred that never given any assurance by them as alleged by the complainant. Since disbursement of own damage claim is on the basis of validity of vehicle records and also on the survey report.
The complainant submitted own damage claim. The surveyor appointed by the opposite party assessed and reported that the eligible amount to pay is Rs.46,189.98/- paise. But while company processing the file for payment it is noticed that the insured vehicle has no valid fitness at the time of accident. The fitness certificate was expired on 24.05.2017. Hence on 25-09-2017 there was no valid fitness certificate. Hence the vehicle was plying without fitness certificate and it is against law and policy condition.
This opposite party issued the policy in accordance with provisions of Chapter X & XI of MV Act 1988 and it is stated as “We hereby certify that the policy to which the certificate relates as well as the certificate of insurance are issued in accordance with provisions of chapter X&XI of MV Act”. It is submitted the mandate given in chapter X & XI of the MV Act is that, as per Sec.158 in chapter XI of MV Act it is mandatory that a person driving the vehicle shall have the insurance certificate, certificate of registration, driving license and in case of transport vehicle there shall be permit and fitness. Company issued the policy on the basis of the mandatory provisions in chapter XI of the MV Act. The RC owner of the vehicle is bound to obey the said mandatory provision in section 158 of the MV Act. Any violation of the said provision will attract violation of said condition. The vehicle in question having was not fitness certificate as on the date of accident. Hence the company as per letter dated 7/12/2017 intimated the complainant regarding the repudiation of the own damage claim. Hence in the circumstance there is no deficiency of service from the part of this opposite party.
Complainant and opposite party represented through counsel. The complainant examined as PW1, Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. No oral evidence adduced by opposite party, Ext.B1 to B4 were marked on their side. Opposite party filed argument notes.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get insurance claim amount from the opposite party?
- Compensation and costs if any?
Point No.1
The opposite party contented that the complainant is not a consumer since he is using the vehicle for commercial purpose. Neither documentary nor oral evidence is advanced to substantiate said contention. In the absence of cogent evidence the issue is found in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2 and 3
Ext.A1 is the copy of the policy certificate, Ext.A2 is the receipt, and 2 job cards, Ext.A3 repudiation letter, Ext.A4 certificate of registration and Ext.A5 letter dated 5-1-18.
Ext.B1 is copy of the policy conditions belongs to the complainant, B2 is the survey report in respect of the vehicle in question, B3 copy of R.C Book belongs to the complainant and B4 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 7-12-2017. Ext.A3 and Ext.B4 are one and the same document.
No dispute with regard to the insurance policy. The reason for repudiation is that the vehicle in question has no valid fitness certificate at the time of accident, ie on 25-9-2017. The fitness certificate was expired on 24-05-2017. The vehicle was plying without fitness certificate and it is against the policy condition as contended by the opposite party.
It is admitted that the vehicle had damaged on a road accident on 25-9-2017. The same was insured with the opposite party for the period of 4-2-2017 to 03-02-2018. The reason mentioned in Ext.A3 (B4) repudiation letter is “the certificate of fitness of the above vehicle had expired on 24-5-2017”. But nothing is mentioned in complaint with regard to the reason for repudiation. It is understood from the complaint that even though valid insurance is with the vehicle, opposite party refused to disburse the claim amount. Opposite party admitted that the vehicle has valid insurance coverage but as per Ext.B3 registration certificate (Ext.A4) the fitness certificate issued for the period of 25-5-2015 to 24-05-2017. Hence on 25-9-2017 there was no valid fitness certificate. In accordance with their version opposite party invite our attention to the relevant section in Motor Vehicle Act,1988. As per sec.158:- Production of certain certificates, license and permit in certain cases (1) Any person driving a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on being so required by a police officer in uniform authorized in this behalf by the State Government, produce-
- The certificate of insurance;
- The certificate of registration;
- The driving license and
- In the case of a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness referred to in section 56 and the permit, relating to the use of the vehicle.
According to opposite party company issued the policy on the basis of the mandatory provisions in chapter XI of the MV Act. The RC owner of the vehicle is bound to obey the said mandatory provision in section 158 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Any violation of the said provision will attract violation of said condition.
In view of the above mentioned reasons we are only to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the result we dismiss the complaint without any cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 27th day of August,2020.
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Thomas P.J (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of policy certificate
Ext.A2 - Receipt and two job cards
Ext.A3 - Repudiation letter
Ext.A4 - Copy of Certificate of registration
Ext.A5 - Copy of letter dtd 05.01.2018
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of the policy conditions
Ext.B2 - Survey report
Ext.B3 - Copy of R.C Book
Ext.B4 - Copy of repudiation letter dtd 07.12.2017
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-