P.Q. Barkath Ali : President
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 48/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad of u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,94,638/- with interest and a cost of Rs.1000/- being the insurance claim of the complainant for the damage caused to his Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555 in an accident.
2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:
Complainant is the owner of the Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555. On May 30,2011 it met with an accident by dashing against a lorry. PW1, the complainant spent about Rs.3,06,715/- for repairing the car. The car was insured with the opposite party Reliance General Insurance Company by a valid policy during the relevant period. The claim put forwarded by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that at the time of accident there were 10 passengers in the vehicle while seating capacity was only 7, which is not true. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming Rs.4,06,715/- as compensation with interest.
3. The 2nd opposite party is M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company, Kochi, 1st opposite party is its Branch office at Palakkad. They in their version contented thus before the Forum:
The policy as well as the occurrence of the accident is admitted. At the time of accident there was 10 passengers in the vehicle while seating capacity was only 7 which is clear violation of the conditions of the policy. Therefore opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complaint. That apart the Surveyor has assessed the loss as Rs.1,94,638/-. Opposite parties if found liable are only bound to pay that amount.
4. Both parties filed proof affidavit and Ext A1 to Ext.A6 were marked on the side of complainant, and Ext.B1 to Ext.B5 were marked on the part of the opposite parties before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that the opposite parties are not justified in repudiating the claim of the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.1,94,638/- with interest and a cost of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
Heard both the counsels.
The following points arise for consideration.
1. Whether the opposite parties are justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
5. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the ground that the vehicle was overloaded at the time of accident which is clear violation of the conditions of the policy. It is admitted that the seating capacity of the vehicle was 7, but at the time of accident there were 9 persons therein. But out of these 9 persons 4 were children. Therefore it cannot be said that vehicle was overloaded at the time of accident that apart it is not shown that overloading was the cause of the accident. Further PWs 1 and 2 testified that the vehicle was stationery at the time of accident which is not seriously challenged in cross examination. For all these reasons we are of the view that the opposite parties are not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. That being so the finding of the Forum that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties is confirmed.
6. The Forum has directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,94,638/- being the damaged assessed by the Surveyor with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of repudiating till the date of order and thereafter @ 9% per annum and cost of Rs.1000/-. We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.
In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.