SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party for getting an order directing the OP to pay the value of brand new petrol two wheeler or to pay an amount of Rs.92,000/- as the value of the lost vehicle of complainant with Rs.65,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Complainant filed the complaint with the allegations that he was the owner of the two wheeler motor bike which was manufactured by Yamaha company bearing Reg.No.KL-58-H-9261 and the said vehicle is having insurance coverage as per the policy certificate No.76260031160300002935 issued by OP, as per the policy condition OP has to make reimbursement to the owner of the vehicle for any damage caused to the vehicle. The complainant submitted that on 26/9/2016 at about 1.45 a.m the son of the complainant has return back from his friend’s house , when the vehicle reached at MOP road in Pathiriyad, he has seen that some CPM activists gathered there for committing political riot and attacking him. So he left the vehicle in the spot and ran away. Thereafter the said violent mob rushed after him and thrown country bomb towards him and they came back and destroyed the vehicle and the vehicle was set on fire by them. Due to the act of the said violent group the vehicle was totally burned and nothing was remain. The complainant submitted the violent mob of CPM activists involved in political riot torched and burnt the vehicle while it was in stationary position. As per the assessment of the workshop for the service of the said vehicle for making in running condition an amount of Rs.91333/- is required. According to them if the repair work was done for the above quotation there is no guarantee for the life of the vehicle. They said that the repair work is not advisable the vehicle is totally damaged. Hence the complainant submitted certified copy of FIR and other relevant documents and request before the OP for getting reimbursement for the loss sustained to the vehicle because the loss was caused to the vehicle when it was in stationary position. Mean while the RC of the vehicle was cancelled by the RTO since the service of the vehicle was not advisable and the vehicle was totally damaged. So the rejection of claim on the ground of non-production of driving license of the rider is immaterial. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence filed this complaint with prayers as stated in the complaint.
After receiving notice OP entered appearance and took the stand that OP was not liable to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant ‘ as the complainant had not produced the driving license of the rider of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for the OP contends that that since the son of the complainant who driven the vehicle at incident time did not possess driving license to drive the bike in dispute, OP is not liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. On the other hand the learned counsel for complainant submitted that the question regarding possession of driving license by the driver of the vehicle does not arise in the present case because the entire loss was caused to the vehicle when it was in stationary position. The learned counsel submitted that on seeing the violent mob for attacking him, the son of insured left the vehicle in the spot and ran
away. Then they have destroyed and set on fire the vehicle while it was in stationary.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exts.A1 to A6 marked. One witness was also examined from the side of complainant, while the Insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its senior Divisional Manager and got Exts.B1 to B4 marked.
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant Sri.Unnikrishnan had taken two wheeler enhancement cover policy for Rs.1,00,000/- evidenced under policy Ext.B1. It is also not in dispute that the insured vehicle was burned due to the act of violent group on 26/9/2016 night. It is also not in dispute that the insurance company had repudiated the claim of the complainant through Ext.B3 without giving accident benefit solely on the ground that complainant have not produced the driving license of the rider of the vehicle at the time of the accident and that there is no proof that the insured has not produced the driving license of the rider of the vehicle at the time of the incident.
The main averment of complainant is that when the vehicle reached at the incident place driven by the complainant’s son, some political activists gathered there for committing political riot and attacking him. So he left the vehicle in the spot and ran away. Thereafter the violent mob rushed after him and thrown country bomb towards him and they came back and destroyed the vehicle and the vehicle was set on fire by them. Complainant’s averment is that he is entitled to get reimbursement for the loss sustained to the vehicle because the loss was caused to the vehicle when it was in stationary position. So the rejection of claim on the ground of non-production of driving license of the rider is immaterial.
It is seen through Ext.A6 that the workshop has given quotation for making the vehicle in running condition an amount of Rs.91333/- is required . Hence for getting reimbursement for the total loss of the vehicle, complainant has given request to the insurance company along with certified copy of FIR and other relevant documents. The OP in fact verified the records and appointed Accident loss Assessor Mr.M.P.S Sreejith to prepare report in respect of cause nature and extent of loss damage, however did not pay the accident benefit. No reason whatsoever was mentioned except stating that not having driving license to the driver. The surveyor reported about the accident that when the vehicle reached at the incident spot five persons came across the road with weapons like sword etc and on seeing this, the rider of the insured vehicle jumped out from the vehicle and ran towards the road side bushes and hidden himself there. By the time, they set fire to the vehicle and thus the vehicle was completely burnt out on fire. The surveyor assessed the amount payable under salvage loss basis as Rs.36900/-. From FIR and from the surveyor report complainant proved that at the time of accident, the vehicle was in a stationary position.
PW1 during cross-examination deposed that in page 2 - 26/9/2016 \v ]peÀs¨ 1.45.A.M
\mWv Fsâ aIsâ bike I¯n¨p. -4 -5 B{IanIÄ Fsâ aI³ HmSn¨ph¶ bike XSªp\nÀ¯n t_mw_v Fdnªp bike I¯n¨p. Bike  \n¶pw aI³ Cd§n HmSn. Further deposed in page 3 that aIsâ license Rm³ lmPcm¡n sImSp¯nÃ. hnbpsSIpsS license I¯nt¸mbn. B Imcyw insurance company sb Rm³ Adnbn¨nÃ.
OP’s learned counsel submitted that a person should possess a driving license to use a vehicle in a public road and the complainant as an insured of the vehicle, permitted his son, who does not have a driving license to ride the bike on a public road. Here the Insurance company have appointed the surveyor because it suspects genuineness of the claim. Further from Ext.B2 it is seen that the vehicle purchased with M/s Indusind Bank finance. On considering FIR and other records in connection with the vehicle, the insurance company ought to have paid accident benefit as assessed by the surveyor.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.36900/- to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which Rs.36900/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to file execution application under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1-FIR
A2-RC
A3-Policy
A4-Complaint(subject to proof)
A5-Cancelation of RC
A6-Quatation
B1- Policy
B2-Motor survey report
B3-letter sent by OP to complainant
B4-postal acknowledgment
PW1-K.V.Unnikrishnan-complainant
PW2-witness of complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
