Appeal no.792/2014

18.07.2022.

:ORDER:

BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

          Heard from the respondent also, on going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order, we noticed here that this complaint initially filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and in not settling the own damages claim.

          After receipt of information with respect to the accident, the Opposite Parties no.2 and 3 appointed IRDA surveyor to assess the loss. After receipt of the said survey report, the respondent/Opposite Parties have repudiated the claim for the reason that the vehicle involved in the accident with the goods vehicle whereas as on the date of accident the vehicle was carrying passengers against the permitted capacity of two persons and also noticed that the driver has no valid driving license to drive the good vehicle as on the date of accident.

After trail, the District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that there is no driving license  and violation of terms and conditions of the policy against which this Commission has not found any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim, the reason that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and played the vehicle by carrying more than permitted persons in the vehicle and also noticed that he had no driving license as on the date of accident, the claim made by the complainant is not justifiable and we found there is no error in the order passed by the District Commission and hence the appeal is also dismissed.     

Member.                                                                     Judicial Member.