IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26587 of 2007(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR. THOMAS GEORGE VELLATHOTTAM, FLAT NO.9F, GOLDEN ENCLAVE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-686004. BY ADV. SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM. 2. THE MANAGER, GRIEVANCE CELL, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, 2ND FLOOR, CC 27/2603, PULINAT BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD,KOCHI-15. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOCHI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 016. 5. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOCHI. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R1,2&5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1805/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 26587/2007. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DT. 11-6-2007 EXT.P2 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE POLICY. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF MOTOR CLAIM FORMN. EXT.P4 COMMUNICATION DT. 10-8-2006. EXT.P5 DOCUMENT DT. 14-8-2006. EXT.P6 COMMUNICATION DT. 21-8-2006. EXT.P7 COMMUNICATION DT. 28-8-2006. EXT.P8 REPLY DT. 8-9-2006. EXT.P9 LETTER DT. 9-9-2006. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF INVOICE. EXT.P11 REPRESENTATION DT. 16-9-2006. EXT.P12 LETTER DT. 9-10-2006. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF PETITION. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. 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/