ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. Vs. VALSA GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by OP/Insurance Company against the order dated 25.11.2010 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, ˜the State Commission) in Appeal No.616 of 2009.

(2.) THE factual matrix of this case are that the respondent no. 1 who is first complainant is the registered owner of the Tempo Traveler bearing Regn. No.K13 -D/6177 which was used as an ambulance. The permit of the vehicle to use it as an ambulance was surrendered before RTO when the vehicle was sold to the second respondent who was complainant no.2 before the District Forum. No objection certificate was issued by the RTO for transferring the registration of the vehicle from Kerala to Tamil Nadu. The said vehicle had been insured by the respondent no. 1 with the petitioners for the period from 4.7.2003 to 3.7.2004. On 14.12.2003, when the aforesaid vehicle was on way to Salem, it met with an accident at Neelampur in Comimbatore -Salem Road with heavy damage to the vehicle. At the time of the accident the vehicle was driven by one P.K. Kurian who was having valid licence. An FIR was lodged with the police in respect of the accident and the respondents submitted claim form before the petitioner. Surveyor was appointed by the petitioner company and after inspection of the vehicle permission was given to carry out the repairs of the vehicle. After the repairs, a bill amounting to Rs. 98,615/ - was sent to the office of the petitioner at Salem on 6.2.2004 for settling the claim. The petitioner, however, repudiated the claim raising certain contentions. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, the respondents filed the present complaint for issuing direction to the petitioner to allow the claim amount along with compensation and cost and also for allowing the respondent no.2 who is power of attorney holder to receive the amount from the petitioner. Petitioner Co. opposed the complaint but the District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings and evidence placed before it allowed the complaint in terms of its order dated 23.6.2009 which is reproduced below:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order of the District Forum, the petitioner challenged the same before the State Commission by filing an appeal which was partly accepted by the State Commission by its impugned order dated 25.11.2010. The operative part of the order reads as under: In the circumstances we find that opposite parties are not entitled to reject the claim in toto as the policy violations are not so serious so as to exonerate the insurer from the entire liability. Hence, the opposite parties are directed to pay on non -standard basis of the claim submitted by the complainants. Hence the order of the Forum is modified as follows the appellant will settle the claim with the 2nd complainant by allowing 75% of the repair cost of Rs.98,615/ - less legal deductions specified in the policy conditions. The complainants will be entitled for interest at 9% from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.3000/ -. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the 2nd complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 25.11.2010 i.e. the date of this order .