D.o.F:27/03/2013
D.o.O:03/01/2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.107/13
Dated this, the 3rd day of January 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Lissy Jose ,alias Lissamma Jose,
W/o Jose, House No.7/257, : Complainant
Srayi Pallil, Mudott,Kallar,
Rajapuram Po.671532. Kanhangad.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Branch Office, Nithyananda Building, : Opposite party
Main Road, Kottacherry, Po.Kanhangad
(Adv.C.Damodaran)
ORDER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
In nutshell the case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL60-A 8825 which was insured with the opposite party as comprehensive package policy . On 18/10/12 the complainant took the vehicle to Popular Vehicle & Service Ltd Payyanur for service and it had an accident by hitting with an electricity post and due to the accident the above vehicle was completely damaged and the electric post is broken and damaged. The complainant reported about the accident to the opposite party paid Rs.7010/- as compensation to KSEB . The opposite party had registered the claim and after survey submitted bills and voucher for settling the claim. But the opposite party had repudiated the claim on 30/10/2012 stating that on the date of accident the vehicle have no valid fitness certificate and therefore the action taken by the opposite party is unjustifiable and there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party and hence the petition.
2. Notice to opposite party was issued by registered post and appeared though counsel and filed version by raising contention that the claim was rightly and legally repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy since the vehicle was not having a fitness certificate on the date of accident and the fitness was expired on 27/7/2011, since for a long time vehicle was plying without a fitness certificate and the allegation that vehicle was not used for hire is denied and further alleged that to run a taxi vehicle on the road fitness is mandatory and thereby the complainant had violated the provisions of the M.V.Act and policy condition and therefore the opposite party is not liable to reimburse the amount paid by the complainant to KSEB and there is no deficiency as alleged by the complainant.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit as PW1 in support of his claim and Exts.A1 to A6 marked . Ext.X1 survey report also marked. Complainant was cross examined by the counsel for the opposite party and also submitted that opposite party has no oral evidence to be adduced and produced the copy of the policy which was marked as Ext.B1.
4. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. What order as to relief and costs?
5. Points 1&2:- The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the vehicle is insured with the opposite party is admitted and it is also pertinent to note that the specific case of the complainant is that the vehicle was taken to Popular vehicle and Service Ltd. Payyanur for services and also contended that it was not used for hire reward on the date of accident and she had compensated for an amount of Rs.7010/- to the KSEB and also repaired the vehicle from Popular by spending an amount of Rs.99945/-. But the complainant stated in the cross examination that the vehicle was kept without plying it for a period of 11 months. And the same was not intimated to the RTO and also specifically admitted in her cross examination that after accident she has taken fitness certificate for the vehicle. Therefore it is crystal clear from the deposition of the PW1 that there was no fitness certificate for the vehicle involved in the accident and the learned counsel for the opposite party relying on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Thara vs. Syamala reported in 2009 (2) KLT 707 that a goods carriage can be used on the road for carrying goods only after obtaining permit and use of vehicle without fitness certificate or permit will entitle insurer to dishonor liability under policy. In this case PW1 admitted that the vehicle was taken to Popular for service and also admitted that the fitness certificate was taken only after accident and therefore we hold that the complainant failed to prove that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party since opposite party repudiated the policy. It is further observed that it is mandatory to ply the taxi on the road without fitness certificate and hence the opposite party is not liable to refund the amount which was paid to KSEB and repair charge and other reliefs. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Exts:
A1-copy of RC
A2-Copy of certificate issued by KSEB
A3-copy of estimate
A4-copy of letter from OP
A5-copy of job card retail invoice
A6-copy of service estimate
B1- copy of policy
X1- survey report
PW1- Lissy Jose-complainant
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
