By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle No. KL 53 M 2845 Ashok Leyland Dost (Goods Vehicle). The chassis number of the vehicle is MBI AAZE 4 HRX77268 and Engine number is XHH 033109P. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party and policy number was valid from 08/11/2018 to 07/11/2019 and vehicle was hypothecated with Cholamandalam Investment and Finance. According to the complainant, he was doing business of resale of used tyres with the help of the above said vehicle. It is also stated that the complainant was earning his livelihood by the using the vehicle and he was paying Rs.15, 000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) each in every month as EMI of the vehicle . On 18/09/2019 the vehicle met with an accident and heavy damage was sustained to the vehicle. The complainant reported the incident with the opposite party. Consequently, the surveyor of the opposite party visited the place of occurrence and inspected the vehicle on the same day. On the very next day the damaged vehicle was taken to the service centre of Ashok Leyland at Valluvambram with the help of crane and recovery service. The complainant handed over the report and bill with regard to repair work done and it was known that reimbursement was granted from the head office of the opposite party. But even after lapse of two months, the complainant did not receive the amount spent for repair work from the opposite party. So the complainant could not taken back the custody of the vehicle from the service centre so far. The opposite party is liable to reimburse the amount spent for repair work of the vehicle under the coverage of insurance policy. It is averred by the complainant that due to the non-availability of the vehicle, the source of income for his livelihood came to halt and the repayment of the loan was also became due. The complainant also trapped in debt spiral. It is contended by the complainant that the opposite party is committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. So the complainant filed the complaint praying for a direction to the opposite party to reimburse Rs.2,13,358/- (Rupees Two lakh thirteen thousand three hundred and fifty eight only) to the complainant as the expenses incurred for the repair work of the vehicle insured with the opposite party . The complainant claimed Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakh only) as the amount EMI of two months of the loan . The complainant also prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant as the loss of earnings of last two months as the vehicle was kept idle and prayed for payment for future earnings also . The complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation from the opposite party for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship . The complainant also claimed 12% interest to the total amount if the opposite party is not comply the direction and along with cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. In the version the opposite party denied all allegations raised in the complaint and contended for the dismissal of the complaint. The contention of the complainant that the accident was took place on 18/09/2019 and sustained damages are denied by the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the allegation of the complainant that all documents pertaining to reimbursement were submitted and claim was sanctioned from the head office and opposite party not cared to make payment are false. It is contended by the opposite party that there was no liability on the part of the opposite party to reimburse the claim of the complainant. The opposite party is also contended that the complainant is not entitled for any claim raised in the complaint as the opposite party did not commit deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the complainant. The opposite party admitted the issuance of the coverage policy to the vehicle of the complainant but the coverage depends on the basis of terms and conditions of the policy. According to the opposite party the vehicle should have been driven by a competent person having a valid driving licence as per the law. The driver should possess a valid driving license with badge for driving commercial transport vehicle. It is contended by the opposite party that at the time of alleged accident, the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid badge to drive transport vehicle, but had only a LMV driving licence. According to the opposite party, the badge of the driver was expired on 14/04/2019 and date of accident was 18/09/2019. At the time accident there was no valid license to the driver of the vehicle. It is further stated by the opposite party that the claim amount is exaggerated and without any basis. The assessment of liability comes only to the tune of Rs.97,973/- after deducting policy excess and not Rs.2,13,650/- as claimed by the complainant . In addition, insurance policy is a contract and parties are bound to follow its terms and conditions. So the opposite party was not liable to indemnify the claim of the complainant. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and the opposite party filed affidavits in lieu of evidence of the respective sides. Both parties also produced documents. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A7 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle owned by the complainant. Ext. A2 document is the insurance certificate issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A3 document is the tax license of the vehicle. Ext. A4 documents are the job card along with a bill of invoice dated 30/09/2019 issued by the service centre, Indus Motor Light Commercial Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., Valluvambaram. Ext. A5 document is the copy of driving license. Ext. A6 document is the job card invoice dated 30/09/2019 issued by Ashok Leyland Company showing the repair work of the vehicle. Ext. A7 document is the copy of account statement related to the vehicle loan issued by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. The documents produced by the opposite party are marked as Ext. B1 to B3 documents. Ext. B1 document is the copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. B2 document is the copy of motor final survey report dated 21/10/2019 issued by the insurance surveyor. The complainant filed an interim application numbered as IA 1/2023 to examine the manager of Indus Motors, Light Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,
Valluvambaram and same is allowed by the Commission. Consequently the witness was examined as PW1 and his evidence was recorded by the Commission.
5. The Commission heard the contentions put forwarded by both sides. Perused all documents available for scrutiny. The points considered for adjudication are;
1) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.
2) Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1 & 2
It is stated by the complainant that he is the owner of a goods vehicle number KL 53 M 2845 and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The complainant produced copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle and marked it as Ext. A1 document. The complainant produced copy of insurance certificate issued by the opposite party and same is marked as Ext. A2 document. The complainant produced tax licence and same is marked as Ext. A3 document. Ext. A1 document proves that the complainant is the owner and Ext. A2 document shows that there was valid insurance coverage to the vehicle from 08/11/2018 to 07/11/2019. The opposite party also produced copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance and marked as Ext. B1 document. As per the contention of the complainant, he had purchased the vehicle with the financial assistance of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd and in order to support his contention the statement of account is also produced by the complainant. The Commission marked statement of account as Ext. A7 document. The grievance of the complainant is that vehicle was met with an accident and heavily damaged. But the claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred for repair work was denied by the opposite party without any valid reason. The complainant produced copy of job card invoice issued by the Indus Motor Light Commercial Vehicle Private Limited, Valluvambaram and it is marked as Ext. A4 documents. According to the complainant total expenses incurred for the repair works comes to the tune of Rs.2,13,358/-. Ext. A6 document also reveals same thing (Ext. A4 and A6 are one and same). But the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant. It is contended by the opposite party that at the time of alleged accident, the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid badge to drive the transport vehicle. Moreover, the opposite party further contended that the assessment of liability comes only to the tune of Rs.97,997/- after deducting policy excess and not Rs.2,13,650/- as claimed by the complainant. The complainant produced his driving license before the Commission and marked it as Ext. A5 document. The opposite party also produced same document i.e. the driving licence of the complainant and marked it as Ext. B2 document. In the evaluation of evidence it can be seen that the opposite party admitted the fact of insurance coverage to the vehicle as claimed by the complainant. Admittedly the accident occurred and damage sustained to the vehicle was during the period of insurance coverage. The Commission does not give much weightage in the argument of the opposite party that lack of badge at the particular time of accident. On the contrary it was also admitted by the opposite party in the version that LMV driving licence is held by the complainant at the time of accident. It is also finds that the opposite party did not take proper step for the rejection of claim raised by the complainant within a reasonable time. The Commission finds that all the objections got up by the opposite party were occurred only after filing of the present complaint. So the Commission conclude that there is reasonable lapse on the part of the opposite party in the rejection of the claim and thereby committed act of deficiency in service. It is also contended by the opposite party that the amount claimed by the complainant was exaggerated and not incurred as stated in the complaint. The Commission holds the view that there is element of doubt with regard to quantum of expenses estimated for the repair work of the damaged vehicle. According to the complainant, he sustained the expenses of Rs.2,13,358/-. But when analysing the evidence, it can be seen that the amount claimed by the complainant is excessive and without support of sufficient documents. The opposite party had produced survey report and marked it as Ext. B3 document. As per Ext. B3 document final liability of the opposite party was fixed to the tune of Rs.1,02,973/- (Rupees one lakh two thousand nine hundred and seventy three only). The Commission also examined Ext. A4 and A6 documents and found that a bill of Rs.86,360/- produced along with Ext. A4 document cannot be considered in favour of the complainant . The opposite party also raised objection and questioned the veracity of the bill No.3325 for Rs.86,360/-. The date of issuance of the above said bill is vague one. The complainant stated that bill was issued by service centre at the time of repair work. The Commission examined the manger of service centre, wherein the repair work of the damaged vehicle was conducted. At the time of examination of the witness, it is revealed that Rs.1,06,360/- ( Rupees one lakh six thousand three hundred and sixty only ) is the expenses incurred for the repair work of the vehicle insured with the opposite party . The witness also stated in the box that bill No.3325 shows the amount inclusive of the amount of Rs.1,06,360/-. So the claim of reimbursement of Rs.2,13,358/- by the complainant is found baseless. So the Commission finds that the complainant is eligible for Rs.1,06,360/- only from the opposite party as the amount of reimbursement under the policy coverage. The Commission cannot allow the claim of Rs.30,000/- as the amount spent for EMI of the vehicle and Rs.50,000/- as loss of earnings due to the delay happened to take back the vehicle from the service centre . Considering the entire evidence available on record, the Commission allows the complaint partly in the following manner.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,06,360/- ( Rupees one lakh six thousand three hundred and sixty only) to the complainant as the reimbursement of amount incurred for the repair work of the insured vehicle along with 6% interest from the date of filing this complaint until the date of this order.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service committed towards the complainant.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only ) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise entire amount shall bear 9% interest per annum from the date of the order till its realization
Dated this 27th day of April, 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1
PW1: Nidhin.P.T (Manager Indus Motors Commercial Vehicle Pvt. Motors)
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A7
Ext.A1: Copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle owned by the complainant.
Ext.A2: Insurance certificate issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext A3: Tax license of the vehicle.
Ext A4: Job card along with a bill of invoice dated 30/09/2019 issued by the service
centre, Indus Motor Light Commercial Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., Valluvambaram .
Ext A5: Job card invoice dated 30/09/2019 issued by Ashok Leyland Company showing
the repair work of the vehicle.
Ext A6: Copy of driving license.
Ext A7: Copy of account statement related vehicle loan issued by Cholamandalam
Investment and Finance Company Limited.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: Copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance issued by the opposite party
to the complainant
Ext.B2: Copy of motor final survey report dated 21/10/2019 issued by the insurance
Surveyor.
Ext.B3: Copy of tax licence and same is marked
