KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 370/10
JUDGMENT DATED: 03.03/2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
Ravinathan Pillai, : APPELLANT
Varuthundil,
Cherumoodu,
Vellimon, Kollam.
(By Adv.S.Reghukumar)
Vs.
1. V.Philip, : RESPONDENTS
Head of Direct Marketing,
Bajaj Alliance,
G.E.Plaza,
Airport Road,
Yerawada,
Pune – 411 006.
2. Suresh,
Manager, Bajaj Alliance
Pulinat Building, 2nd floor,
M.G.Road, Kochi.
3. Binoj.A.M.,
Bajaj Allianz,
Direct Marketing,
Fanugraha,
T.C.28/2222,
2nd Floor,
Pazhavangadi,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satheesh, counsel for R1 to R3)
4. Akbar Mon.A.J., Manjisha,
Inchakkadu, Kakkakunnu.P.O.,
Sooranadu South,
Kollam – 690 522.
(By Adv.R.Vishnu Roy)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant in CC.02/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid to the opposite party.
2. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties 1 to 3 issued a policy certificate and identity card with incorrect vehicle No. ie, KL.2S 9622 instead of the correct No. KL.02S 9662. Immediately on receipt of the policy through the agent of the opposite parties 1 to 3 he telephonically sought for getting the number corrected. The policy period is from 24.7.07 to 23.7.08. He received the corrected policy only on 27.12.07. According to him he could not ply the vehicle and he had to hire taxi during the period. According to him he used to travel 80 to 100 KMs every day. He is in cashew business.
3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that admittedly it was a clerical mistake and immediately the registration number was corrected. It is also mentioned that the error was brought to the notice of the opposite party only in November. The complainant was asked to produce photos of the vehicle and RC book of the vehicle. According to the opposite party the same was not produced on the ground that the vehicle is given for painting and changing the number plate. Further it is mentioned that on 13.11.2007 the vehicle number was corrected by making necessary endorsement.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1; Exts.P1 to P4 and D1 and D2.
5. The Forum has dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that the opposite parties have corrected the Registration number and fresh policy issued. All the same the Forum has directed the complainant to pay cost of Rs.1000/-.
6. We find that the approach of the Forum is totally erroneous. The case of the complainant is supported by the testimony of PW1 the complainant. Nothing is brought out in the cross examination to discredit his version. Ext.P4 postal cover would show that the policy corrected was received on 28.12.2007. It is only a matter of presumption that the person who would have to drive the vehicle without insurance policy will have to face a number of consequences in case he is caught in the middle of the road. There is no explanation for the delay in correcting the error and handing over the corrected policy. Even admittedly the opposite party has corrected the C.C number in the policy on 13.11.07 but the corrected policy was received by the complainant only on 28.12.07 ie, after about 1 ½ months. There is evident deficiency. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. Opposite parties 1 to 3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2500/-. The complainant will also be entitled for interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 03.03.2011 the date of this order.
In the result the appeal is allowed as above.
The office will forward the LCR to the Forum alongwith the copy of this order.
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
ps
