By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :-

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The Complainant is the R.C Owner of a Maruthi Alto Car bearing registration No. KL 12/D 1001. The vehicle is insured and policy No.2568617. The coverage of the policy extended till mid night of 02.10.2008. On 01.10.2008 at about 10 P.M the vehicle was dashed at by a Santro car in the back side when it was parked near Kuttirayan Palam in the side of NH 212. The Complainant filed a petition before SHO Meenangadi and claim form was fulled up and given to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant had to bear the expenses of repair for Rs.25,000/-. The Opposite Parties are headless of the request and the claim was rejected. The repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Parties are absolutely deficiency in service. The Complainant had to keep up the vehicle idle for a period of 1 ½ months. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give the Complainant Rs.25,000/- with the interest at the rate of 12% towards the cost and compensation, the Complainant is also entitled for Rs.20,000/-.

2. The Opposite Parties filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the Opposite Parties are as follows:- The Complainant is not a remitter of premium and therefore claim of the Complainant as a consumer does not exists. The contention of the Complainant that he paid Rs.2,389/- towards the premium and the issuance of the policy No.2568617 is incorrect. The policy issued for the vehicle was for the period from 3.10.2007 to 2.10.2008. It is also incorrect to say that the vehicle No. KL 12/D 1001 the car which met with the accident on 1.10.2008. The Opposite Party has not received any claim dated 2.02.2008. The policy of the insurance expired on 2.10.2008. The alleged accident was not reported in time and more over the vehicle which said to be collided with the Complainant is not a santro car. The registration No. KL 55A 5282 is the registration number alloted to Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle. On investigation by the investigator of the Opposite Party, the accident was not reported to be evented on the date specified. The allegation of the Complainant that he spent Rs.25,000/- towards the repairs are to be proved by the Complainant. The allegations are nothing but woven story to draw money the illegally . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed.

3. The points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavits of Complainant and Opposite Parties along with the oral testimony. Exts.A1 to A7 and Exts. B1 to B6 are the documents produced in this case.

5. The case of the Complainant is that the vehicle No.KL 12D 1001 was hit with an another car when it was parked on the side of the road. The vehicle was insured and the accident took place within the period of the coverage. The Opposite Party contented the risk coverage of the policy since it does not exist after 2.10.2008. Ext.A3 is the certificate issued the SHO Meenangadi. This documents shows that the vehicle No.KL 12D 1001 Alto Car hit with the back side by a read Santro Car. The incident was at about 10 PM. The santro car dashed at the Complainant's vehicle and ran off. The Complainant gave petition to the SHO Meenangadi on 3.10.2008 and G.D entry was made in result of it. Ext.A6 is the receipt given to the Complainant. The date of accident it is on 1.10.2008. The coverage of the policy ceased to exist on 2.10.2008. The 2^nd Opposite Party is in tie up with the 1^st Opposite Party to meet the coverage of the risk. The hit and run of the vehicle though alleged to be KL 55A 5282 which is the register number of a motor cycle cannot be treated as a substantial ground which is in contrary to the statement of the Complainant. The accident was when the vehicle was within the period of the coverage of the policy. The SHO Meenagadi during the relevant period is examined as PW3 it is reiterated in statement that on 1.10.2008 at 10 PM an information regarding hit and run by a Santro car on the vehicle No. KL 12D 1001 was received in the Police Station. The complaint was received by the SHO on 3.10.2008. The Complainant was not confirmed of the registration number of the vehicle which hit and run in the instant case. Mere difference in the identification of the vehicle and number cannot be considered a substantial ground which amount for repudiation of the claim. The Opposite Parties have no case that the damages in hit and run was beyond the period of coverage. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorised agent of the Maruthi vehicle. The repudiation of the claim by the 1^st Opposite Party is nothing but a deficiency in service and the point is decided accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Ext.B5 is the estimate given to the Complainant by the Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd., Puthiyangadi, Calicut. The amount spent for the repair charges in total comes Rs.30,117/- including the labour and service charges. The Opposite Party has no contention that the amount spent for the repair charges is more than the amount required to be spent. It is also admitted by the 1^st Opposite Party that the 1^st Opposite Party that they are responsible for the claim of coverage since the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are in tie up. We are in the opinion that the claim of the Complainant for Rs.25,000/- towards the repair charges is a reasonable amount which is to be compensated by the 1^st Opposite Party along with cost.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) towards the repair charges of the vehicle along with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). The Complainant is  also entitled for an interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing this complaint till the amount is realised. This is to be complied within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 27^th February 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Balan. Complainant.

PW2. Manoj. Business.

PW3. Rajeesh Kumar. Sub Inspector of Police.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. N. Subash Babu. Crime Cure Private Detective.

OPW2. Ravi. V.P. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A2. Copy of Certificate cum Policy Schedule.

A3. Copy of Certificate.

A4 series (2 numbers) Receipt.

A5. Copy of Job Card Retail Invoice. dt:22.11.2008.

A6. Receipt. dt: 03.10.2008.

A7. Copy of Policy.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Motor Claim Form. dt:10.10.2008.

B2 (3 sheets) Letter. dt:02.11.2008.

B2 (a) Vehicle Details.

(marked with objection).

B3.(5 sheets) Deposition.

(marked with objection)

B4. Copy of Certificate Cum Policy Schedule

B5. Job Estimate.

B6. Letter. dt:10.10.2008.