STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/44/2017 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY PRESENT ADDRESS - CKH Building Ground floor, Thazhepalam, Tirur, Represented by its Dy.

Manager, T.P. Hub, 11, Uloor, thiruvananthapuram,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MOIDEEN PRESENT ADDRESS - Thirunavaya, Kalathilkaruvettil, Athavand P.O, tirur Taluk, Malappuram,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 05/02/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.44/2017 JUDGEMENT DATED: 05.02.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.88/2013 of the CDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., CKH Building, Ground Floor, Thazhepalam, Tirur represented by its Deputy Manager, T.P. Hub, Door No.11, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram (by Adv. Varkala B. Ravikumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Moideen T.K., S/o Hussain, Tirunavaya Kalathil Karuvattil House, Athavanad P.O., Tirur Taluk, Malappuram (by Adv.R. Suja Madhav)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the opposite party in C.C.No.88/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (the ‘District Commission’ for short).

2. As per the order dated 30.07.2016 the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.1,04,602/-(Rupees One Lakh Four Thousand Six Hundred and Two only) to the complainant as the cost of repairing the vehicle with a compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only). The above amount shall be paid by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which they are liable to pay the said amount with interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.

3. The brief details of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant had taken an insurance policy from the opposite party for covering his Mahindra Bolero Invader car(taxi) for the period from 16.03.2011 to 15.03.2012. The car met with an accident on 02.05.2011 and the vehicle was repaired at TVS service centre, Malappuram. The claim was lodged with the opposite party insurer and they conducted a survey and assessed the repair costs as Rs.65,248/-(Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight only). The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,04,602/-(Rupees One Lakh Four Thousand Six Hundred and Two only) and claimed that amount from the opposite party. The insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver at the time of accident had no valid badge to drive a transport vehicle. Hence, the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party claiming the repair charges, compensation and costs.

4. The opposite party had entered appearance and filed version contending that the car of the complainant is used as a taxi vehicle and the driver had no valid badgeat the time of accident to drive a car plying with taxi permit. The complainant has violated the policy conditions requiring the authorisation to drive the transport vehicle. Hence, according to them opposite party is not liable to any claim to the complainant. They also submitted that the claim is excessive and the actual amount of loss is as assessed by the surveyor. According to them there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. Evidence consists of proof affidavits of complainant and opposite party.

Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of opposite party. O