IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 28th day of September, 2017
Filed on 31.10.2016
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.349/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Shajimon.G 1. Reliance Insurance Co.ltd
1/138 Ettukandathil Alappuzha, represented by its
Kanjippadam.P.O Branch Manager, 2nd Floor
Avalookkunnu P.O. Kabeer Plaza, VMCA Road
Alappuzha . Alappuzha-688 001
(By Adv. Thomson Pulthakadi)
2.. Focus Automobile Service Ltd.
Madaparambil Estate
Thookkukulam Junction
Sanathanapuram.P.O
Alappuzha.
Represented by its Manager
(By Adv. C. Muraleedharan –
for Opposite parties.)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is the registered owner of KL-04/Af-6900 TATA Indica Car. The vehicle was insured with the first opposite party and the insured policy was valid from 26/4/2016 to 25/4/2017. As per the policy, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for own damage. On 6/6/2016 while the vehicle it was stopped in the traffic block, a van with registration No. KL 64/C-228 hit on the back of the vehicle and that caused heavy damages to the vehicle. Then the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for repairing and he paid Rs. 5,000/- as advance to the 2nd opposite party. So far the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant after repairing. The first opposite party has not yet paid the insurance amount to the 2nd opposite party or to the complainant. The delay in delivering the vehicle has caused much financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2.The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that the vehicle No. KL-04/AF 6900 is an insured vehicle with policy No. 2212262338000150 valid from 26.4.2016 to 25.4.2017 and the covered shall be subject to terms and conditions of the policy read with Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. The complainant informed the first opposite party regarding the incidents and immediately the opposite party deputed its surveyor and loss assessor to conduct survey of the loss and to submit its report and the complainant is also requested to comply the terms and conditions of the policy and the requirements as to the Motor Vehicle Act for proceeding with the claim. It is absolutely false that the surveyor had assured the complainant to bear all losses and is added only for making unlawful gain. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had not made any claim against the offending vehicle KL-64/C-228 and he failed to produce required documents even after repeated requests. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3.The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that the complainant’s vehicle No. KL-64/C-228 suffered damages due to an accident and if there is any offending vehicle for the cause is to be proved by the complainant himself. On producing the vehicle to this opposite party informed the first opposite party for inspection and had prepared an estimate of Rs. 89,866/50 for the repairs and on obtaining permission from the surveyor requested the complainant for an advance payment of Rs. 5,000/- for securing the balance payment after receiving the admissible claim from first opposite party. On completing repairs this opposite party is entitled to get Rs. 76,300/- after deducting the advance payment from the complainant. But the complainant had never paid the amount till date and whiles the vehicle being kept in the workshop, it taken into custody by policy on the basis of a crime case and is with them and the amount is unpaid. Since the complainant has not paid the repairing charges, the opposite party is not bound deliver the vehicle as alleged.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A7. Documents produced by the first opposite party were marked as Ext.B1 to B7 and documents produced by the 2nd opposite party were marked as Ext.B8 to B15.
5. Points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) If so the relief and costs.
6. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle owned by the complainant was insured with first opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle involved in an accident on 8.8.2016. The complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party for repairing. The first opposite party admitted that when the complainant informed the incident, they deputed a surveyor to assess the loss sustained. But according to the first opposite party they rejected claim since the vehicle has no fitness certificate at the time of accident. From the documents produced it is clear that the No. of the certificate of fitness of the vehicle is 32757/14 and it expired on 18.4.2016. The accident was on 8.8.2016. At the time of accident the vehicle has no fitness certificate. So the point to be considered is whether the opposite party can repudiate the claim of the complainant stating that the vehicle has not fitness certificate. In a ruling report in 2015(2)KLT page 139 in Augustine Vs. Ayyappankutty the Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court stated that insured cannot claim exoneration from its liability if vehicle gets involved in accident after the expiry of validity of fitness certificate or permit. In the instant case the accident occurred when the vehicle was stopped in the traffic block another vehicle hit on the back of the vehicle. So it is clear the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of other vehicle. The vehicle is dispute was covered by valid policy and no contention that the driver was not having a valid driving license, so no doubt that the apse of certificate of fitness is not a cause of the accident. There is nothing on evidence to show that the breaches alleged whether fundamental breaches which have contributed to the cause of accident. In the absence of any evidence to show that the breach was no fundamental as to lead to the accident the first opposite party cannot repudiate the claim. Hence we are of opinion that the first opposite party is liable to entertain the claim of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that on getting information about the incident the first opposite party deputed surveyor to inspect the vehicle. But no survey report was produced by the first opposite party. According to the 2nd opposite party that on completing the repairs he is entitled to get Rs. 76,300/- after deducting the advance payment from the complainant. Ext.B8 evidenced the same. The letter dated 20.9.2016 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant shows that the balance amount to be paid by the complainant is Rs. 71,300/- From the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the first opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 71,300/- to the complainant towards insurance claim.
In the result complaint is allowed. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 71,300/- (Rupees Seventy one thousand and three hundred only) to the complainant with 8% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization. The first opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is directed to deliver the vehicle after getting the said amount from the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in
open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2017. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Shajimon.G. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the Reliance Passenger Carrying Vehicle Package Policy
Certificate cum Policy Schedule
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Voucher No. 278 dtd. 11.08.2016
Ext.A3 - True Copy of the R.C. Book
Ext.A4 - Copy of the GD Entry
Ext.A5 - Copy of the letter dtd. 20.9.2016
Ext.A6 - Copy of the complaint before the Judl. 1st class Magistrate Cout
Ambalappuzha.
Ext.A7 - Photo
Ext.A8 - Form CFRA and 10 documents
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of the policy dtd. 26.4.2016
Ext.B2 - Copy of the Contract carriage Permit dtd. 3.5.2014.
Ext.B3 - Copy of the GD entry dtd 9.8.2016
Ext.B4 - Copy of the letter dtd 22.8.2016.
Ext.B5 - Copy of the letter dtd. 27.9.2016
Ext.B6 - Copy of the letter dtd. 17.10.2016
Ext.B7 - Copy of the assessment details of the vehicle dtd. 9.11.2016.
Ext.B8 - Copy of the main estimate dtd 8.11.2016.
Ext.B9 - Copy of the receipt dtd. 11.8.2016
Ext.B10 - Copy of the Job card dtd. 11.8.2016
Ext.B11 - Copy of the notice dtd. 25.8.2016.
Ext.B12 - Copy of the invoice dtd. 31.8.2016.
Ext.B13 - Copy of the request dtd. 16.11.2016 from the 2nd opposite party
to the Sub Inspector of Police, Haripad.
Ext.B14 - Copy of the registered letter dtd. 20.9.2016 with a/d card.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
