IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26587 of 2007(M)
1. MR. THOMAS GEORGE VELLATHOTTAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER,
3. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN,
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
5. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY
For Respondent :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :18/05/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 26587 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 18th day of May, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the owner of a Honda Accord car, which was
insured with the National Insurance Company, the officers of whom
are respondents 1, 4 and 5 in this writ petition. The vehicle met with
an accident. It was repaired by the authorized dealers of Honda
Company. They issued an invoice for Rs. 75460/- as the repair
charges. The petitioner preferred a claim for insurance with the
National Insurance Company for that amount. Since the same was
not considered favourably, the petitioner approached the 3rd
respondent Insurance Ombudsman for appropriate relief. The matter
was considered by the Ombudsman, who passed Ext. P1 order dated
11-6-2007 directing the Insurance Company to pay to the petitioner
an amount of Rs. 35,000/- as insurance money. Dissatisfied with the
quantum awarded by the Insurance Ombudsman, the petitioner has
filed this writ petition challenging that part of Ext. P1 award, whereby
the full claim of the petitioner for Rs. 75,460/- has not been awarded
by the Insurance Ombudsman to the petitioner .
2. The petitioner’s contention is that the petitioner has
produced invoice of the repairer along with their clarifications
clarifying as to how they arrived at the amount of Rs. 75,460/-, which
is sufficient evidence to prove the veracity of the petitioner’s claim.
They point out that without rejecting the same, the Ombudsman who
is not an expert on mechanical engineering arbitrarily reduced the
amount, which is unsustainable. Therefore, according to the
petitioner, the Insurance Ombudsman should have awarded the entire
amount of Rs. 75,460/- instead of restricting it to Rs. 35,000/-.
3. Respondents 1, 4 and 5 have not cared even to file a counter
affidavit. When no counter affidavit is filed, this Court can very well
assume that the averments in the writ petition are not controverted by
W.P.C. No. 26587/07 -: 2 :-
the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner has produced a bill for
repair charges. He has also gone to the extent of producing
appropriate clarifications in respect of the invoice before the
Insurance Ombudsman in support of the invoice. The Ombudsman
has not specifically found that the charges mentioned in the invoice
are inflated charges or that the invoice cannot be accepted in
evidence. The Insurance Ombudsman is not an expert in mechanical
engineering. So, unless he enters a finding that the bill produced by
the petitioner is an inflated one, he cannot simply ignore the bill and
fix a lesser amount as the insurance amount.
4. Admittedly, the vehicle is covered by insurance. The
respondents have not cared to dispute the accident also. When the
petitioner has got the vehicle repaired from the authorized dealers of
the manufacturer themselves, unless there are very strong reasons to
disbelieve the same or coming to the conclusion that the same is an
inflated one, the Ombudsman could not have arbitrarily come to the
conclusion that the invoice cannot be accepted as such and fix a
reduced amount, especially when the Insurance Ombudsman is not an
expert in mechanical engineering. That being so, after finding that
the petitioner is eligible for insurance amount, I do not find any
reason for restricting the insurance amount to Rs. 35,000/-, which,
according to me, is arbitrary and perverse. Insofar as the petitioner
has proved his case by producing the invoice issued by the repairer,
without giving any cogent reasons, the Insurance Ombudsman could
not have restricted the insurance amount on the basis of his own
assumption as to the probable amount, the petitioner would have
incurred, for the repair, according to him.
In the above circumstances, Ext. P1 award to the extent it
W.P.C. No. 26587/07 -: 3 :-
restricts the award amount to Rs. 35,000/- is hereby quashed. It is
held that the petitioner is entitled to the entire amount of Rs. 75460/-
covered by the invoice issued by the repairer as insurance amount as
per the policy of insurance. The said amount of Rs. 75,460/- shall be
paid by respondents 1, 4 and 5 within one month from today. The writ
petition is allowed as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
