Wednesday the 31^th day of August , 2011

in

between

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                      O R D E R

1.        The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL-32 A/4898. On 26^th march 2009, while the complainant’s friend was travelling in the said vehicle, the same met with an accident and the car sustained massive damage. The complainant intimated the factum of accident to the opposite party forthwith, and in line with the instruction of the opposite party, the complainant took the vehicle to the authorized work shop to get the same revamped. The complainant had to incur Rs. 85756/-(Rupees Eighty fivethousand seven hundred  and fifty six only ) to get the damaged car repaired, and the bill thereof was produced before the opposite party. The opposite party, strangely still has been disinclined to reimburse the same. The opposite party repudiated the complainant’s claim on untenable reasons. The complainant sustained mental as well as monetary woes. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

2.         On notice being served, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the car was being used as a hired vehicle at the material time of the accident. The insurance policy issued to the complainant was for private purpose. According to the opposite party, the complainant yet rented out the vehicle, and the material accident took place while the vehicle was plying on hire. The complainant thus has violated the policy conditions which rendered him disentitle to the policy claim. The opposite party has not committed deficiency of service. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party fervently contends.

3.         The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as Pwl and that of Radhakrisnan as Pw2, and the documents Exbts Al& A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, its manager filed proof affidavit, and the documents were marked as Exbts Bl to B4.

4.          . Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up for considerationare:-

(a) Whether the accident occurred while the vehicle was plying                         `            on hire?

      (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief?

5.         We carefully went through the materials put on record. It is worthwhile to notice that the policy or the material accident and the consequent damage has not been denied or disputed by the opposite party. What is fervently contended is that the complainant has rented out the vehicle at the time of the accident in question which is absolutely against the very condition of the policy. Keeping the said momentous contention of the opposite party in mind, we anxiously perused the pleadings, proof affidavits and other documents which form the part of the record of the instant case. It appears that the opposite party forcefully contends that the complainant vehicle was plying on hire at the time of the accident. The opposite party’s case is that the complainant, as against the policy conditions has rented out the material vehicle. To fortify the opposite party’s case, it seems that the opposite party relies on the police records, Motor survey report and the report of a private investigator. Strangely still, the opposite party has not made it a point to file the affidavit of any of those who has prepared the "said  reports or cause them to mount the box.  On the other hand, Pw2  admittedly the occupants of the insured  vehicle at the material time asserted in the box that the car was not used on hire at the material time. Inthis circumstance, we are of the view that the opposite party though fervently alleged that the complainant has violated the policy conditions, has not brought on record to show before us that at the time of the accident, the car in question was being used on hire. The opposite party denied the complainant the repaired charges of the vehicle on unsustainable grounds. Needless to say, we are of the strong view that the complainant is entitled to relief.

6.         Inview of the facts and findings of the discussions made herein above, the opposite party is directed to payout to the complainant an amount of Rs. 85756/-(Rupees Eighty  five thousand seven hundred and fifty six only ), the complainant had to incur to get the material vehicle patched up. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compared by:-