By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

 

            The complaint was filed on 1-11-06. The complainant was the owner of the goods autoriksha bearing registration No. KL-11-T-6144. The vehicle was covered by the insurance policy No. M.V./5091/06 issued by the opposite party for the period from 3-7-05 to 29-7-06. On 26-6-06 the vehicle met with an accident near Thondayad, Calicut. The accident was informed to the opposite party. Claim form duly filled up was also submitted to the opposite party with all relevant documents. An amount of Rs.13120/- was estimated by the workshop for repairing the damages caused in the accident. Opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the driver Mr. Sakkir Hussain, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not posses an effective driving license to drive the particular class of vehicle viz. 3 wheeler goods vehicle. The complainant had intimated to the opposite party stating the correct fact that Mr. Sakkir Hussain was having two wheeler driving license light motor vehicle driving license, heavy motor vehicle driving license and also heavy transport vehicle driving license. Sakkir Hussain the driver of the vehicle which met with an accident also had a badge to drive commercial goods vehicle which was sufficient for the purpose of driving any class of vehicle. He was an experienced driver driving all classes of vehicles for the last 15 years. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by repudiating the claim without any basis. The reason shown by the opposite party to repudiate the claim of the complainant is not at all sufficient or proper. Because of the deficiency of service of the opposite party the complainant was put to much hardships monetary loss and inconvenience. The complainant is seeking relief and has filed petition before the Forum.

 

            Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint. There is no deficiency, negligence or short coming in the service rendered by the opposite party. The opposite party admits the issuance of Policy No. M.V. 5091/06 for the period from 30-7-05 to 29-7-06 to the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11-T-6164 owned by the complainant. Opposite party also admits that the complainant had reported the accident of the vehicle on 26-6-06 at Thondayad, Calicut. Opposite party had deputed a Surveyor to assess the damages caused to the vehicle. While processing the claim of the complainant, the opposite party came to notice that Mr. Sakkir Husswain who drove the insured goods autoriksha bearing Registration No. KL-11-T-6164 did not hold and possess an effective driving license to drive a three wheeler goods vehicle. This was in violation of the specified conditions in the policy. Hence the opposite party was not in a position to allow the claim of the complainant. The complainant was duly informed about the repudiation of the claim vide letter dt. 10-8-06. The claim of the complainant was totally repudiated on legal and valid grounds. There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party. Hence opposite party submits to dismiss the petition.

 

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the petition? If so what is the quantum?

 

            No oral evidence was adduced by both the complainant and opposite party and Ext.A1 to A7 were marked on complainant’s side. Ext.B1 was marked on opposite party’s side.

 

            The complainant has filed the petition against the opposite party for repudiating the claim submitted by the complainant on 27-6-06 in respect of the accident to the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11-T-6164. The complainant was the owner of a goods autoriksha the vehicle was covered by the insurance Policy No. MV-5091/06 for the period from 30-7-05 to 29-7-06. The vehicle met with an accident on 26-6-06. The accident was informed to the Opposite party, duly filled up claim form was submitted before the opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the claim stating that Mr. Sakkir Hussain who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident did not possess an effective driving license to drive goods autoriksha. Against this statement of opposite party complainant had forwarded a letter dt. 24-8-06 stating that Mr. Sakkir Hussain was having two wheeler driving license, LMV driving license, HMV driving license and a badge to drive commercial goods vehicle. The driver of the vehicle had a license to drive both non-transport vehicle and transport vehicle. He was also having a badge and license to drive goods vehicle. The complainant had a valid policy during the time of the accident.   Ext.B1 produced by the opposite party is the certificate-cum-policy schedule of the vehicle of the complainant which was involved in the accident. The above said vehicle was covered by the policy issued by the opposite party. Opposite party had collected an amount of Rs.2561/- towards insuring the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle Sakkir Hussain had a valid driving license during the period of accident is proved by Ext.A2 document. The driver also had a badge to drive goods vehicle. The opposite party had repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver did not have a license to drive three wheeler. Hearing the counsels for the complainant and opposite party and also perusing the document Ext.A2 the Forum has come to the conclusion that the driver was competent enough to drive all types of vehicles as he had license to drive two wheeler, light motor vehicle, heavy motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. A person who is capable of driving all such vehicles will be competent enough to drive a goods autoriksha also. As the vehicle was insured with opposite party, in our opinion the repudiation of the claim of the complainant was improper. Taking into consideration the argument of both complainant and opposite party and perusing the documents produced on both sides, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief.

 

            The complainant has claimed for an amount of Rs.13120/- which was the estimate given by the workshop for repairing the damages caused in the accident. But the complainant has not produced any documents other than Ext.A4, estimate to show the actual damages caused and actual repair works done for the said vehicle. At this instance we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/-.

 

            In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10000/- along with a compensation ofRs.1000/- and a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 12th  day of July 2010.

Date of filing :1-11-06.

 

                        SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER           SD/- MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Photocopy of certificate-cum-policy schedule issued by O.P. to the complainant.

A2. Photocopy of Driving License of Sakeer Hussain.T.

A3. Photocopy of certificate of Registration.

A4. Photocopy of estimate for the repair of the vehicle from New India Automobiles,

        Puthiyapalam, Kozhikode, dt. 30-6-06.

A5. Photocopy of letter dt. 10-8-06.

A6. Photocopy of letter dt. 24-8-06 sent by the complainant to the O.P.

A7. Photocopy of letter dt. 25-8-06 sent by O.P. to the complainant.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1. Certificate-cum-policy schedule.

 

                                                                                    Sd/- President

                        // True copy //

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.