Date of filing : 08-08-2008 Date of order : 23-07-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 134/08 Dated this, the 23rd day of July 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER. Sameer.A, S/o. Shiakunhi, R/at Sameer Manzil, Kadiyar House, Near Moideen Juma Masjid, } Complainant Bangara Manjeswar.Po, Kasaragod Taluk. (Adv. K.Vinodkumar, Kasaragod) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd, } Opposite party IIIrd floor, Finance Tower, Kaloor, Ernakulam.17. (Adv.S.Mammu, Taliparamba) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The case of complainant in brief is that opposite party repudiated his own damage claim pertaining to the vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL-14/G 2576 without assigning any reason. According to complainant one Ashraf was engaged as the driver of the said taxi vehicle and it met with an accident on 8-1-2008 at Pala and the vehicle caused damages and two persons sustained injuries and the repudiation of his claim amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. 2. According to opposite party the accident was caused not 8-01-08 and but on 10-01-08. The complainant had failed to inform the accident to opposite party immediately after the accident which is a violation of policy condition. In the claim form submitted long after the accident, the name of driver was shown as Ashraf. Complainant suppressed in the claim form about the alleged injury sustained by the driver or other 7 passengers travelled it. Complainant without informing the accident immediately to the opposite party removed the vehicle from accident spot without the consent of opposite party consequently complainant had deprived opposite party the opportunity to ascertain necessary facts related to the reported accident, cause of loss circumstances, quantum of loss required to decide, the admissibility of claim etc. Moreover the vehicle was fitted with LPG fuel used for domestic purpose as against the policy that has been opted for petrol vehicle. This also a violation of policy conditions. Though in the complaint it is stated that alleged driver was treated from Pala Taluk Government Hospital, as per the records of said hospital no such injured name by Ashraf treated there. The investigation conducted by opposite party it is revealed that one Hameed was examined by the doctor along with other injuries in the above accident. Complainant suppressed the real fact as to who is the real driver of the above vehicle at the relevant time. There is no denial of claim by opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties in settling the claim. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. The complainant sworn to an affidavit in support of his claim Exts A1 to A18(a) marked. One witness Ashraf is examined as PW2. On the side of opposite party one Ambili George, Senior Legal Executive of opposite party filed affidavit in support of their contentions. The documents called for at the instance of opposite party Pala Government Hospital and Indira Hospital, Mangalore were marked as Exts X1 to X5 series. Both sides heard, the notes of arguments and documents perused carefully. 4. The case of the complainant is that one Ashraf, who is examined as PW2 was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. According to PW2 he was plying the vehicle and he sustained injuries and was treated in a hospital at Pala. Thereafter he returned home and admitted in Indira Hospital, Mangalore. He further submitted that he is the accused in the criminal case charge sheeted by the police pertaining to the accident. According to him Exts A18 and A18(a) are the cash bills issued to him from Indira Hospital, Mangalore for the treatment administered to him during the period 12-01-2008 to 15-01-2008. Learned counsel for the opposite party Sri.S. Mammu objected the marking of the document on the ground that in the said bills name of the patient is seen over written in a different coloured ink and according to him the documents are concocted to suit the situation. However the documents marked sustaining his objections. To substantiate his contention he requested to call for the copy cash bills that are marked as Ex.A18 and A18(a) from Indira Hospital, Mangalore. His prayer is allowed and the documents produced from Indira Hospital Mangalore are marked as Exts X5(a) and Ext.X5(b). On comparing Exts A18 and Ext.A18(a) with Ext.X5 and Ext.X5(a) it is seen that the name of the patient as per Exts X5 and X5(a) is one Hameed and not Ashraf and the same is changed in Ext.A18 and A18(a). Apart from that Ext.X4 Admission record produced from Indira Hospital, Mangalore also shows that it was one Hameed admitted in the hospital on 12-01-2008 with complaint of blunt injury to chest, rib fracture etc due to an RTA 3 days age prior to hospitalisation. Ext.X4 supports the case of the opposite party that it was Hameed driving the vehicle the relevant rime of accident and he was not an authorized driver having necessary documents and that is why complainant substituted him with Ashraf is well founded. Through a feeble attempt is made by the complainant to establish that Ashraf is also known by the name Hameed no documents produced by him to prove this argument. Even otherwise the contradiction in the name of patient in Exts A18, A18(a) and Ext.X5 and X5(a) clinches the issue. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that at the relevant time of accident the driver plying the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/G 2576 was one Hameed and he was not authorized to drive the type of vehicle involved in the accident. Hence in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd V. Prabhulal reported in I (2008) CPJ 1(SC) the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and the complaint accordingly fails and hence dismissed. However, in the circumstances with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Photocopy of RC A2. 30-01-07 Invoice. A3. Photocopy of Certificate cum policy schedule A4. Copy of FIR A5. Copy of final report. A6. Report from the Police Sub Inspector Traffic Unit. Pala dt.14-2-08 A7. Photocopy of contract carriage permit A8. Photo copy of driving licence. A9. Copy of Mahazar A10.Report of Inspection of Motor Vehicle involved in an accident . Traffic unit Pala. A11. 22-4-08 copy of letter went by Adv. K.Vinodkumar to Opposite party A12. 6-5-08 copy of letter sent by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd to Adv. Vinodkumar. A13. Receipt No.8730 an amount of Rs.20,000/- A14. Receipt No. 9262 an amount of Rs. 55,000/- A15. Receipt No. 279886 an amount of Rs.57,644/- A16.Job card Retail Inovice. A17. Job Card Retail Invoice. A18. In patient bill Indira Hospital, Mangalore. A18(a) In patient bill ,, ,, X-1 Final Survey Report. X-2 Motor Insurance Claim Form. X-3.toX3(j) Accident Register Cum wound certificate X-4. Admission Record & Consent Form (Indira Hospital Mangalore) X-5(a) & X5(b) In patient bills (Photocopy PW1.Sameer PW2.Ashraf Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
