MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE Vs. M.P.SREEKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite parties are the appellants aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF in C.C. 225/09 came up in this appeal. The order is to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 17,535/ - with 9% interest from the date of filing the complainant till realization. Further direction is to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/ - to the complainant.

(2.) THE case pleaded by the complainant is that he was a registered owner of Wagon RLXI bearing No. KL4L 9578 insured with the opposite parties. On 25.7.2007 he had to undertake some repairs when smoke came out from the vehicle out of the combination switch unit attached to the steering column. Due to the smoke he switched off the ignition key and contacted the workshop and had to carryout repair work and the switch had to be replaced. Again on 3rd January, 2008, the car got fire spontaneously from the combination switch part and caused heavy damage to the car. The same day itself the matter was reported to the insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured during the period from 22.11.2007 to 21.11.2008. An estimated repair work for Rs.75,000/ - was given by the workshop. After the repair a bill amount of Rs. 38,035/ - had to be paid by the complainant. The surveyor was appointed and assessed the damage to the tune of Rs. 20,500. Though the surveyor assessed the loss, the amount was not paid to him and the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the investigation report revealed that the complainant was using domestic LPG in the car. Through this matter was denied by the complainant the opposite parties repudiated the claim and the complainant approached the Forum for compensation and other reliefs.

(3.) THE opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had already preferred a petition before the Insurance Ombudsman and the ombudsman already dismissed the complaint as on 19.2.2009. It is also the contention that another complaint was moved by the complainant before the Consumer Forum against the Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd. on the same cause alleging manufacturing defect and it was also dismissed by the Forum. Now on the same cause of action, the complainant has come up with another complainant against the opposite party. It is contended that the complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed in limine. It is also the contention that on investigation it is revealed that the complainant installed LPG kit in his vehicle without any notice to the opposite party nor to the RTO. It is also revealed that the complainant was using domestic LPG in the car illegally without obtaining the permission from the RTO. It is mandatory, the owner of the vehicle should obtain permission from the RTO before changing into the gas conversion. The complainant had done this conversion by violating the policy condition. On consequent to the violation of policy the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify any loss and repudiated the claim. As per the survey report, the loss caused to the vehicle was only Rs. 17,500/ - and that too is not payable due to the nature of the incident and the opposite party is not at all liable for the loss caused to the vehicle under the policy coverage. There is no delay in processing the claim. If there is any delay caused is only due to the re calculating attitude by the complainant himself. There is no delay nor any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any relief sought or for any compensation.