Date of Complaint :16/04/2014

                                  Date of Disposal :26/02/2015

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

  SMT. K.D. PARVATHY, MEMBER

O R D E R

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opponent for deficiency of service.

2. The Complainant’s case in brief is that, the complainant is the owner of the Ercher Lorry bearing registration No.KA 12 A 9234.  The said vehicle is insured with the opponent as per policy No.0720033112 P 302332473 which covers from 11/02/2013 to 10/02/2014.  The complainant states that the said vehicle met with an accident on 14/06/2013 near Manchalli Village, Virajpet Taluk as a result of head on collusion with a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA 09 F 4316. The complainant states that at the time of the accident the said vehicle was being driven by the driver S. Sudeesh.  The complainant states that at the time of the accident the said vehicle was having temporary registration No.KA 09-TY-4716.

3. The complainant states that due to the accident the said vehicle was severely damaged.  The complainant states that the opponent was informed regarding the accident and the said vehicle was taken to swaraj Auto clinic at Mysore.  The complainant states that the total cost repair of the said vehicle was Rs.2,58,812/- and was paid by the complainant since the opponent refused to pay.  The complainant states that he had submitted all the necessary documents to the opponent which was required for reimbursing the expenses of Rs.2,58,812/-.  The complainant states that he was shocked and surprised that the opponent instead of settling the claim of the complainant had repudiated the claim vide letter dated 21/10/2013 stating that at the time of the accident the said vehicle was having only temporary registration and not a permanent registration.  The complainant states that hence he got a legal notice issued to the opponent for the settlement of his claim.

4. The opponent has denied the averments at para 2 to7 of the complaint of the complainant.  The opponent states that the said vehicle of the complainant was plying with temporary registration at the time of the accident.  The complainant states that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the M.V Act 1988 or such a carriage falling under sub-Sec(3) of Sec 66 of MV Act 1988.  The opponent also states that the driver of the complainant had no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of the accident and hence needs to dismiss the complaint. 

5. The following points arise for consideration. 

1. Whether the complainant has shown deficiency of service by the opponent and whether the complainant is entitled for any of the relief’s sought for in the complaint?
2. To what order the parties are entitled?

6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative
2. Point No.2:- As per order.

7. Point No.1:- The learned counsel for the opponent submits that, they have not committed any deficiency of service as per Consumer Protection Act as the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the MV Act, 1988or such a carriage falling under Sub-Section (3) of Section 66 of the MV Act 1988.  The opponent further submits that under chapter IV of the MV Act for registration of vehicle states that the vehicle temporarily registered under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month shall not be renewable, since there is violation of provisions of the MV Act and policy by not having valid permanent registration at the time of accident.  The opponent further submits that the driver of the complainant at the time of the accident had no valid and effective driving license.

8. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced the Insurance Policy which states that the said vehicle was insured with the opponent at the time of the accident. 

The complainant has also produced the driving licence of the driver of the complainant which clearly states that the driver had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the opponent has filed the order of the National Commission, which states that a vehicle’s temporary registration had expired on 11/01/2006 and at the time of the accident on 02/02/2006 the vehicle was being driven without registration, which is prohibited under section 39 of the MV Act 1988 and also is an offence u/sec 192 of the said Act and so passed an order saying that the damaged vehicle, although insured, is not entitled to claim indemnification under the insurance policy.

The Hon’ble National Commission has passed an order regarding the vehicle who’s temporary registration had expired at the time when the accident occurred. But here the complainant has produced the RC document of the vehicle which clearly states that the said vehicle had been assigned permanent registration No.KA 12 A 9034 on payment of requisite fine.

9. The vehicle of the complainant was covered under the insurance of the opponent and so the insurance company is liable to settle the claim of the complainant.  The complainant has produced the Insurance Policy of the vehicle in question where the clause regarding the limits of liability does not show any clause stating the reasons adopted by the opponent to repudiate the claim of the complainant.

10. In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established his cause made out in the complaint by placing material on record.

       Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.2,58,812/- being the total amount payable as the cost for repair of the said vehicle.

11. Point No.2:- In view of our findings on point No.1 we hold that the complaint de3serves to be allowed in part in the ends of justice.  Hence, in the final result, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complainant filed u/sec 12 of the CP Act by Sri.T.K. Poovanna on 16/04/2014 against the Senior Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Shivarampet, Mysore is hereby partly allowed.
2. The opponent is directed to pay the sum of Rs.2,58,812/- to the complainant.
3. The opponent is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.  The opponent is directed to comply with the aforesaid orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in failure to comply with the aforesaid order within the stipulated period of 30 days, the opponent is liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the total amount of Rs.2,65,812/- from the date of this order till the date of compliance of the aforesaid order.
4. The complainant is also at liberty to file private compliant against opponent for violation of this order for the offence punishable u/sec 27 of the CP Act, which is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
5. Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 26^th day of  February 2015)