DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2023                                                                                                

                          Filed on: 27/03/2017

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                 Member                                                        

CC NO. 131/2017

Between

COMPLAINANT

Yafith U.M., S/o. Hassanabba Melangady, Darga Road, Ullal Mangalore, Karnataka 575020

(Rep. by Adv. Saira Phiroz, Associated Attorneys, Amples Building, Amulya Street, Ernakulam)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1^st Floor, Vishnu, K.P. Vallon Road, Cochin. Rep.  by its Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1^st Floor, Aditya Tower, Opp. RT Office, Kannur. Rep. by its Manager.

(Rep. by Adv. P.S. Ramu, S.A. Nivas, Ponneyath Temple Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin 20)

FINAL ORDER

V. Ramachadran,  Member:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties by Yafith U.M. Complainant states that he is the owner of an Eicher Truck which is a goods vehicle having Registration No. KA-19/C/1772. Transportation of goods is the only source of income which the complainant is getting and the complainant is having a valid permit over the state for all uncontrolled goods except which is prohibited under Law. The permit is valid from 12/09/2013 to 11/09/2013. On December, 2016 while the vehicle was driven by Ashif, who the driver of the complainant, the vehicle met with an accident. Complainant states that vehicle is having a valid insurance from 08/09/2016 to 07/09/2016 the alleged accident was intimated to the 2^nd opposite party for insurance claim.

Further the complainant states that the vehicle was damaged to a tune of repairable amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, the vehicle was given for repair and they provided an estimate amounting to Rs.4,12,190/- and cost for setting the cabin and engine to Rs.22,000/- and the bill for the same was given by Vigneswara Automobiles and SG Automobiles. The complainant had received a letter from the 2^nd opposite party stating that the complainant is not eligible to get the insurance amount since the complainant had sold the vehicle to another person. Thus the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant states that he had not sold the vehicle to anyone and since the repair cost is beyond the affordable limit of the complainant the vehicle is still with the workshop and not serviced. The complainant had alleged that he has sustained a loss of 2 lakhs since the vehicle has not been serviced and used during this time. Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking for getting an order to reimburse the insurance claim from the opposite party along with other relief.

Upon notice from the complainant opposite party appeared and filed their version.

The sum total of the argument made by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in their version is that the opposite party issued a policy to complainant’s vehicle. The said vehicle is registered at the State of Karnataka and the vehicle is sold to and used by Abdul Khader M. without the said transaction being effected in registration certificate as well as policy as the complainant had sold the vehicle the complainant hold any insurable interest. It is submitted that on receipt of the claim from the complainant this opposite parties had deputed an independent insurance investigation agency, Ascom Associates, 1/970, C-17, Jalsu Centre, Westhill, Calicut-05 to investigate the genuenity of the claim put forward by the complainant. The above agency investigated the claim of the complainant and found that the insured vehicle was sold by the complainant for Rs.4,90,000/- as per sale agreement dated 27/05/2014 itself to one Abdul Khader. Moreover the above Abdul Khader had rendered a written statement to the investigator dated 04/01/2017 that the insured vehicle was brought by him from the complainant. By suppressing the said fact the complainant had submitted a claim form to the opposite parties.

Complainant produced 7 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A7 and opposite parties produced 6 documents and marked as Exbt. B1 to B6.

Exbt. A1 is the Policy Certificate issued by the opposite party from which it is clear that the policy is valid from 15.50 hrs. of 08/09/2016 to 23.59 hrs. of 07/09/2016. The IDV of which is Rs.5 lakhs. This insurance policy is given in the name of Mr. Yafith U.M., who is the complainant in this case. Exbt. A2 is Fitness Certificate, Exbt. A3 is Certificate of Registration in which it can be very clearly seen that the name of the owner is Yafith U.M., Exbt. A4 is Statement of Authorization, Exbt. A5 is licence, Exbt. A6 is an estimate and Exbt. A7 is letter received from the opposite party.

Exbt. B1 is a copy of Policy, Exbt. B2 is a copy of an agreement, Exbt. B3 is a copy of letter, Exbt. B4 is Motor Claim Form, Exbt. B5 is Investigation Report and Exbt. B6 is a statement. Out of which Exbt. B2 is an agreement stated to be executed between the complainant and another person.

The points for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?

Here the Commission relied on prima facie evidence from the side of the complainant and Exbt. B2from the side of opposite parties, the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of Exbt. B2 agreement produced by them alleged to be made by the complainant with another person. According to the opposite party the complainant had sold the vehicle on 27/05/2014 to someone and had executed an agreement and therefore the complainant is no more the owner of the said vehicle. Since the complainant is not the owner of the said vehicle, the complainant is not eligible to get the insurance claim. Moreover the complainant ought to change the insurance policy also into the name of the person to whom it is sold within 14 days from the date of sale which has not been done by the complainant. This is the reason for repudiation of the claim as per the version of the opposite parties. The RC owner of the vehicle as per the Certificate issued by the Motor Transport Depart is seen as Yafith U.M. and the document produced as Exbt. B2 by the opposite parties is not seen as a registered one. The authenticity of the agreement cannot be ascertained since the document is not a registered one and Exbt. B2 cannot be considered as a document to establish that the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to someone else on a date prior to the date of accident. The opposite party had not moved the Commission to examine the said Abdul Khader to adduce any evidence to substantiate their argument.

Even on the date of 18/08/2016 which is later than the date of alleged agreement of sale. It can be seen that the name of complainant incorporated as permit holder by Road Transport Authorities and hence the argument of the opposite parties that the vehicle was sold to someone by the complainant and that is the reason for repudiation of the claim cannot be taken into account and hence Point No. (1) found in favour of complainant. Since Point No. (1) found in favour of the complainant, Point No. (2) and (3) also found in favour of the complainant. Therefore the following orders are passed.

1. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.4,12,190/- (Rupees four lakhs twelve thousand one hundred ninety only) to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complaiant.
3. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of proceedings.

The opposite parties shall jointly and severally liable to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order

Pronounced in the Open Commission this 16^th day of August, 2023.

D.B.Binu, President

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s evidence

Exhibit A-   Policy Certificate

Exhibit A-2 Fitness Certificate

Exhibit A-3 Certificate of Registration

Exhibit A-4: Statement of Authorization

Exhibit A-5: Licence.

Exhibit A-6: Estimate

Exhibit A-7:         Letter received from the opposite party.

Opposite parties Evidence

Exbt. B1:    Copy of Policy

Exbt. B2:    Copy of an agreement

Exbt. B3:    Copy of letter

Exbt. B4:    Motor Claim Form

Exbt. B5:    Investigation Report

Exbt. B6:    Statement.

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 131/2017

Order Date: 16/08/2023