Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant is the registered owner of a Bolero Maxi Truck Mahendra Ltd.  bearing registration No.KL34A-3910 and the said vehicle is insured with opposite parties vide policy No.442800/31/2017/3450 which is valid from 25/06/2016 to 24/06/2017 dated 22/06/2016.  It is contended that while the vehicle was plying on Mannarakulanji-Kumbazha public road on 26/10/2016 at about 0445 hours it hit on two XI KV electric posts of KSEB.  It happened due to the lost of control over the vehicle by the driver one Nithin Vijayan.  The vehicles as well as the two XI KV electric posts are sustained damages due to the result of this accident.  According to the complainant the Pathanamthitta police registered a GD entry related to this incident and KSEB authority inspected the site and prepared a mahazar showing a loss of Rs.70,000/-.  The complainant remitted Rs.52, 853/- to KSEB Kumbazha office as compensation, which was caused to KSEB.  The complainant filed claim application before the opposite party to reimburse the damage caused to the vehicle and the electric posts in which the opposite parties paid damage to the vehicle but failed to give any compensation for the damage of the electric post.  According to the complainant a valid insurance policy is his force between the parties and he is entitled to reimburse the amount paid to the KSEB.  The Act of the opposite parties are clearly comes under the deficiency in service as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986 and also pleaded that the non-payment of the damage of electric post caused much inconvenience hardship, mental agony etc. to the complainant for which the opposite parties have to be compensated to the complainant.  Hence the complainant, for awarding an amount of Rs.52,853/- as the reimbursement of his payment to KSEB, compensation, cost etc.etc.

                  3.  This Forum entertained the complainant and issued notice to opposite parties for appearance.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed their version.  Though 3^rd opposite party received notices from this Forum he did not turn up so that 3^rd opposite party is declared ex-party by this Forum.  The version of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are as follows.  According to this opposite parties this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted that the 1^st opposite party had issued Goods Carriage Package Policy to the complainant for a period of 25/06/2016 to 24/06/2017.  It is also admitted that on 26/10/2016 at 04.45 am an accident occurred to the vehicle which skidded and hit on the electric post as alleged by the complainant.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party received a claim form along with a report of the surveyor and settled the claim for Rs.30, 965/- as the full satisfaction of the complainant.  It is contented that this opposite party had no information with regard to the damage caused to the electric post in the accident dated 26/10/2016.  The amount alleged to have been paid by the complainant to the KSEB was arbitrarily fixed by the KSEB so that they could not get an opportunity to take up the matter with the KSEB for a negotiation.  The complainant failed to claim the damages caused to the electric post there by opposite parties did not get an opportunity to assess the damages.  Therefore these opposite parties are prayed to dismiss the case with cost to them.

                   4.  We peruse the complaint version and records before us and framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

                               5.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Through him Ext. A1 to Ext. A9 were also marked. Ext. A1 is the copy of the insurance certificate. Ext. A2 is the copy of registration certificate, pollution control certificate and tax receipt.  Ext. A3 is the copy of the GD extract of Pathanamthitta police station dated 28/10/2016.  Ext. A4 Copy of the legal notice, postal registration receipt and acknowledgement card dated 08/03/2017.  Ext A5 is the driving license of the driver at the relevant time of the accident.  Ext. A6 is the KSEB receipt dated 26/10/2016.  Ext.A7 is to whomsoever it may concern certificate issued by the KSEB dated 26/10/2016.  Ext.A8 is the utilization certificate for submitting before insurance officer dated 27/10/2016.  Ext.A9 is a certificate issued by the KSEB dated 27/03/2017.  On the other side the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.  After the closure of evidence we heard both sides.           

6.   Point No.1:- The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party contented that the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  When we appreciate the evidence before as we can see that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-34A-3910 and the said vehicle is insured with 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  It is also come out in evidence to see that the accident occurred on 26/10/2016 and on that date a valid insurance policy was in force in favour of the complainant.  Therefore we can easily inferred that the complainant is an insured and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are the insurer

of the complainant’s vehicle and the complaint is a consumer of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and they are service providers of the complainant.  Therefore point No.1 found in favor of the complainant. 

Point No 2 & 3:  For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point No. 2 & 3 together.  The complainant as PW1 deposed more or less as per the tune of the complaint.  In order to substantiate the contention of  PW1 with regard to the valid insurance policy with 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and for proving the registration of vehicle in the name of the complaint he produced and marked Ext.A1 insurance certificate and Ext.A2 series which consist the  copy of  registration certificate, pollution control certificate and tax receipt etc.  In order to establish the contention with regard to the damage of two XI KV electric posts he produced and marked the Ext.A3, the copy of the GD, extract of Pathanamthitta police station.  It shows that the vehicle accident happened on 26/10/2016 at 04.45 am near Mylapra Church in Kumbazha public road.  The GD narrated that the vehicle also caused damage and the complainant PW1 paid Rs. 52,853/- to KSEB as compensation for two XI KV electric posts by receipt No. 46010161026101203 and 46010161026101204 dated 26/10/2016 of KSEB.  The payment of the said amount and the details of the incident can be proved by Ext.A3 and it is confirmed by Ext.A6 series KSEB receipts dated 26/10/2016.  Ext.A4 series are legal notice, postal receipt, A.D. Card etc. which are proved the issuance of a legal notice to 1^st opposite party by the counsel of the complainant.  Ext.A5 is a driving license of one Nithin vijayan to prove that the vehicle was driven by a person who is having a valid driving license at the time of the incidents.  Ext.A7 and A8 are records to show that KSEB has received an amount of Rs.52, 853/- from the complainant as the compensation to KSEB.  Ext.A9 proves that the opposite party settled the claim for an amount of Rs. 30,965/- as a full and final settlement.  The next question to be consider is whether the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  It is the definite case of the 1^st and 2^nd  opposite party that they have no knowledge or information with regard to the loss sustained to the KSEB  electric post and also pleaded that the complainant failed to claim the alleged loss to the electric post when they filed the claim to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  It is also noted that this opposite parties entertained the claim of the complainant and allowed an amount of Rs. 30,965/- to the complainant as the damage cost to the vehicle.  There is no dispute raised by the PW1 with regard to the claim amount of Rs.30, 965/-.  If so, we can infer that at the time of the filing claim form, before the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party, the complainant did not mention the damage happened to the electric post.  Any way though the opposite party raised the objection with regard to the incident related to the damage caused to the electric post, when appreciating the evidence we can clearly find that two XI KV electric post were damaged as a result of this motor accident and also proved that the 3^rd opposite party the KSEB Assistant Engineer concerned conducted an inspection and imposed a compensation of Rs.52, 853/- for the loss sustained to the electric posts.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that the amount was arbiterly fixed by the KSEB so that they are not binding on such assessment.  We do not think that the 3^rd opposite party arbiterly fixed the amount and the amount was excessive as argued.  In the light of the evidence before us we also find that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service by repudiating the complaints claim related to the electric post.  At the same time it is to be noted that the complainant PW1 is entitled to get the amount already paid to KSEB as per the terms and condition of the insurance policy.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are liable to reimburse the amount Rs.52, 853/- to the complaint.  The complainant has to file a separate claim form for the reimbursement before the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  The complaint has no right to get any kind of compensation or cost as requested in the light of the above finding.  Therefore the complaint is allowed in part.  Point No.2 & 3 are also found accordingly.

In the result we pass the following orders:- 

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs. 52,853/- (Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three only) to the complainant as re imbursement (amount already paid by the complainant to KSEB) within one month of the receipt of this order subject to the filing of a claim by the complainant.  If fails, the opposite parties are also directed to pay an interest of 10% for the said amount to the complainant from the date of receipt of this order onwards. 
2. The 3^rd opposite party is exonerated from all charges.
3. No order for cost or compensation.

                  Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st  day of December, 2017.

                                                                                       (Sd/-)

P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)           :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1      :  Nidhin.C.Abraham

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

 A1:  Copy of the insurance certificate.

 A2:  Copy of registration certificate, pollution control certificate and tax

         Receipt.

A3: Copy of the GD extract of Pathanamthitta police station dated 28/10/2016.

A4:  Copy of the legal notice, postal registration receipt and acknowledgement 

       Card dated 08/03/2017. 

 A5:  driving license of the driver at the relevant time of the accident.

 A6:  KSEB receipt dated 26/10/2016.

 A7:  To whomsoever it may concern certificate issued by the KSEB dated

        26/10/2016.

 A8: Utilization certificate for submitting before insurance officer dated

        27/10/2016.

A9:  To whomsoever it may concern certificate issued by the KSEB dated

       27/03/2017.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

PW1  :  Sulaiman,

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:Nil

                                                                                         (By Order)

   Copy to:-

               (1) Sulaiman,Madathaniyil House,Thekkethukavala,Chirakkadavu,

                    Kanjirapally Taluk,Kottayam District..            

  (2) The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co-Ltd.,Cheeranvelil Building,        NH 220,opposite Mini Civil Station,Kanjirappally,Kottayam.

               (3) Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Oriental Insurance Co-Ltd.

                    Thiruvalla.

               (4) Assistant Engineer,Electrical Section, Kumbazha,Pathanamthitta. 

              (5) The Stock File.