IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 25th day of August, 2015
Filed on 02.12.2013
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.369/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Thamarakshan The Branch Manager
Sunil Bhavanam Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kadaathoor P.O. Branch Office
Thazhava, Karunagappally Oppo. MSM College, Kayamkulam
(By Adv. Binu Balachandran) (By Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is the owner of the Qualis vehicle No. KL-02-S 8779. On 11.11.2008 the said vehicle met with an accident at Mylakkadu, Kottiyam, Kollam. The said vehicle was validly insured with the opposite party at the time of accident. The complainant informed the details of the accident to the opposite party and the vehicle was salvaged to the Union Auto Garage, Kayamkulam. Complainant spent and paid Rs.1,37,063/- for the total repairs of the said vehicle subsequent to the accident. He filed a claim to the opposite party for getting the amount expended for repairs, but opposite party repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.On 12.11.2008 complainant was submitted a claim before the opposite party and immediately a Surveyor was appointed to assess the damages and he submitted a report accordingly.Complainant is not entitled to get any amount as there was violation of act and policy condition.The vehicle was converted as a private vehicle and at the time of accident it was insured as a transport vehicle.Complainant is not entitled to get any amount of compensation from the opposite party.
-
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5.It is an admitted fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the opposite party.According to the complainant, due to the accident he had to spend Rs.1,37,063/- for repairing the said vehicle.So he claimed the said amount from the opposite party.But opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured a s a transport vehicle, but converted as a private vehicle without effecting any changes in the policy.So there was a violation of the policy condition and hence they are not liable to pay any amount.The opposite party also stated that on getting information of the accident a surveyor was appointed and he assessed the damages and the amount assessed is Rs.66,576/-.Ext.A2 is the policy of the vehicle involved in the accident.It shows that the vehicle was insured as a transport vehicle. But in the complaint, complainant admitted that, “the vehicle involved in the accident was converted as a private vehicle from 6.3.2008 by the SRTO., Karunagappally.The accident was on 11.11.2008.So it is clear that at the time of accident, the vehicle was used as a private vehicle.As per Ext.A1 the vehicle was insured as a transport vehicle.So there is violation of policy conditions.As per Ext.B3 survey report the amount assessed towards damage is Rs.66,576/-The surveyor also reported that a sum of Rs.1,500/- can be allowed towards towing charges against demand.It is a well settled principle of law that the survey report as an authenticated document and the same cannot be ignored without any cogent evidence contrary to it.Even though PW2 was examined in order to prove the expenses incurred by the complainant in repairing the vehicle, since he was an interested person, the evidence adduced through him is not reliable.Relying the decision reported in 2013(2) CPR page No.329 survey report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside.As per the survey report, the amount assessed towards damages is Rs.68076/- (66576 + 1500).In a decision reported in 2013(2) CPR page No.462 National Commission, it is reported that, “if there is any breach of warranty for condition of policy including limitation as to use complainant is entitled to get 75% of admissible claim on non standard basis.”In the instant case as we have already discussed above, since there is a violation of policy condition, the complainant is entitled to get only 75% of the amount assessed by the Surveyor on non standard basis.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.51,057/- (Rupees fifty one thousand and fifty seven only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of accident till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 25th day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Thamarakshnan (Witness)
PW2 - Surendran (Witness)
Ext.A1-Copy of the driving license
Ext.A2-Copy of the motor vehicle insurance cum policy schedule
Ext.A3-Copy of the certificate of registration
Ext.A4-Copy of the legal notice dated 19.9.2012
Ext.A5-Copy of the certificate
Ext.A6-Copy of the registered letter dated 21.12.2011
Ext.A7-Copy of the cash bill dated 22.10.2009
Ext.A8 series-Copy of the retail invoice (4 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1-Vincent (Witness)
RW2-V.N. Sivan Pillai (Witness)
Ext.B1-Certified true copy of the motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule
Ext.B2-Motor claim form
Ext.B3-Survey report dated 31.1.2010
Ext.B4-Copy of the certificate of registration
Ext.B5-Bill check report
Pr/-
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
