By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant is the owner of Mahindra Jeeto vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-73-A-6330 and he insured it with first Opposite Party. Thereafter, when the Complainant took the vehicle for body work to take fitness certificate, it met with an accident on 17.10.2016 and thereafter as per the instruction of first Opposite Party, he entrusted the vehicle for repair to third Opposite Party. The surveyor of first and second Opposite Party inspected the vehicle and prepared the survey report and thereafter the third Opposite Party completed the repair work. The first and second Opposite Party offered the entire repair charge, the third Opposite Party has not given back the vehicle after repair to the complainant for want of repair charge. Even though, the Complainant contacted the first and second Opposite Party, they rejected his claim on 14.08.2017 stating that he has not produced the fitness certificate. The Complainant was unable to produce the fitness certificate because, he has not completed the body works to get fitness certificate. If, he completed the body work, he should have taken fitness certificate from R T office on production of vehicle. So there is deficiency of service on the part of first and second Opposite Party. Even though, the third Opposite Party agreed to repair the vehicle within one month, they could completed the work only after 10 months. So there is also deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint to get Rs.1,82,027/- with 12% interest from 05.12.2016 from first and second Opposite Parties as insurance claim, Rs.2.25,000/- from the third Opposite Party as compensation for the delay in repair and Rs.80,000/- from all Opposite Parties as compensation for their deficiency in service.
3. The first and second Opposite Parties filed version which in short is as follows:- They admitted the ownership of the vehicle, the accident and submission of claim by the Complainant. They closed the claim of Complainant as “no claim” because the accident was occurred when it was in use and the Complainant has not produced the fitness certificate which is essential to ply the vehicle on road. Though, the decision of the Grievance Committee was sent to the Complainant on 11.09.2017, the Complainant filed this complaint after a long delay submitted the claim form they have also rejected his claim. For these reasons, the Complainant is not entitled to get the amount claimed.
4. Since, the Complainant failed to take steps against the third Opposite Party to procure his presence, the complaint against third Opposite Party did not proceed with.
5. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of
First and second Opposite Parties?.
2. Reliefs and Costs.
6. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1 to A5 and B1 to B7. Both sides heard.
7.Point No.1:- Admittedly, the Complainant is the owner of Mahindra Jeeto vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-73-A-6330 and it met with an accident on 17.10.2016 while on running on road. The allegation of the Complainant is that the accident was occurred when it was going to the workshop for body work to get the fitness certificate. He, thereafter, submitted claim before the insurance company and they rejected the claim for the reason that the Complainant has not produced the fitness certificate. According to first and second Opposite Parties, the Complainant had to produce the fitness Certificate to get the insurance claim because, it is an essential document to ply a commercial vehicle on road.
8. The specific case of the Complainant is that he had failed to produce the fitness certificate, since, the body works of the vehicle was not completed. Accident was occurred when the vehicle was driving on road. The case of the Complainant is that he had to go to workshop for body works to get the fitness certificate. PW1 deposed above this fact. It is an admitted fact there is a valid insurance policy at the time of accident and the claim of the Complainant was proceeded with by the first and second Opposite Parties with the help of surveyor. The surveyor inspected the vehicle from the workshop and he submitted a report stating that the party is entitled to get a claim of Rs.1,47,340/-. But, admittedly, when this report came up before first and second Opposite Parties, they rejected the claim for want of fitness certificate. We do admit that only after the body work, nobody can get fitness certificate. But it is an important document to ply a vehicle on the road. It is very crucial to note that the Complainant has registered his vehicle on 07.09.2016 and the accident was occurred only on 17.10.2016. Therefore, the accidence was occurred after one month. So, it cannot be believed that the Complainant failed to take the fitness certificate after completing the work, even after one month from the date of registration. The specific allegation of first and second Opposite Parties is that the accident was occurred when the Complainant used the vehicle for commercial purpose. Ext.A1, A2, Ext.B4 and B6 are the letters from the insurance office to the Complainant informing about the rejection of his claim. Ext.B1 is the Policy Certificate. The senior and principal officer of first and second Opposite Parties gave evidence as OPW1 to support their contention and disprove the evidence of PW1. The Complainant failed to rebut the evidence of OPW1. In this circumstance, we have no other way except to hold that the Complainant is not entitled to get any insurance claim from the first and second Opposite Parties. Hence it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of first and second Opposite Parties. Hence this point is answered against the Complainant.
9. Point No.2: Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of October 2022.
Date of Filing:-01.12.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Radhakrishnan. M. C. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Nandakumar. V. Senior Divisional Manager, New India
Assurance, Divisional Office, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Letter. Dt:14.08.2017.
A2. Copy of Letter. Dt:11.09.2017.
A3. Copy of Registration Details.
A4. Lawyer Notice. Dt:06.10.2017.
A5. Letter with Finance Details. Dt:03.10.2016.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
B1. Commercial Vehicle Package Policy for the period of 08.09.2016 to
07.09.2017.
B2. Letter.
B3. Survey Report. Dt:19.07.2017.
B4. Letter. Dt:08.08.2017.
B5. Letter.
B6. Decision of Grievance Committee.
B7. Letter. Dt:11.09.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
