Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:  The complainant is the registered owner of a Piagio Greaves Pvt. Ltd. Ape D3-WGV, 3 wheel goods vehicle 2006 Model bearing Reg.No.KL-3N-5851.  The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.411300/31/2007/23167 having validity from 13.3.07 to 12.3.08.  On 25.11.07 the above said vehicle met with an accident near Valiyakulangara NH 47.  The authorised workshop of the vehicle estimated that ` 90,000 is required for the maintenance and repairing work of the complainant’s vehicle.  The complainant had filed a claim form along with documents before the opposite parties for getting compensation.  But the claim was repudiated by them stating untenable reasons.  The repudiation of the complainant’s claim is illegal and not sustainable.  The opposite parties are legally obliged to render proper service to the complainant.  The insurance policy taken by the complainant is a comprehensive policy and the insurer is liable to pay compensation in the event of any kind of accident and the consequential damages happened to the owner and the vehicle.  The accident was occurred during the coverage period and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the damages sustained to the vehicle.  The acts of the opposite parties amounts to a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties, which caused mental agony and other inconveniences to the complainant.  Hence he filed this complaint for getting an order for allowing the complaint to realising an amount of `1,25,000 from opposite parties along with compensation and cost.

                   3. The opposite parties have filed a common version stating the following contentions:  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The opposite parties have admitted the policy issued to the complainant.  On receipt of the claim form, they have deputed a surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the loss of the vehicle.  As such the surveyor had filed a report and the opposite parties assessed ` 9,830 to be paid as the damages to the vehicle.

                   4.  Since the vehicle had hypothecated with Sree Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta, the opposite parties informed the financier to submit the no objection certificate from the complainant to effect payment in favour of the financier.  They had submitted the no objection letter dated 18.8.08 signed by the complainant stating that he has no objection to issue the insurance claim in the name of Sree Ram Transport Finance Company.  On 6.4.09 the financier had issued a discharge voucher being the full and final settlement of the claim.  Thus the claim regarding the damages to the vehicle had been settled by the opposite parties with the financier in concurrence with the complainant.  The complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint.  In the circumstances, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   5.  From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint?

(3)   Reliefs & Costs?

          6.  The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2 filed by the complainant.  And for the opposite parties, 1^st opposite party filed a proof affidavit and produced Ext.B1 to B4.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

          7.  Point Nos.1 to 3:-   The complainant’s case is that his insured vehicle met with an accident during the coverage period of the insurance policy issued by the opposite parties.  The authorised workshop of the vehicle prepared an estimate and the complainant had filed a claim form along with relevant documents before the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties have repudiated the claim stating some untenable reasons.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to a deficiency in service and which caused mental agony and other inconveniences to the opposite parties.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting the reliefs as sought for in the complaint.

          8.  In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the policy certificate.  Ext.A2 is the copy of advocate notice dated 20.11.2009 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.

          9.  The opposite parties contended that on receipt of the claim form they have deputed a surveyor to assess the loss sustained to the insured vehicle and the surveyor assessed ` 9,830 as the damages to the vehicle.  Since the vehicle had a hypothecation with Sree Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., the opposite parties informed the financier to submit the no objection certificate from the complainant to effect payment in favour of the financier.  The Finance Co. submitted the no objection signed by the complainant and issued a discharge voucher being the full and final settlement of the claim.  Thus the claim had been settled by the opposite parties with the financier in concurrence with the applicant.  Hence there is no cause of action to the complainant for filing this complaint.

          10.  In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, 1^st opposite party has filed a proof affidavit and Ext.B1 to B4.  Ext.B1 is the survey report dated 4.5.08 prepared by the opposite parties surveyor.  Ext.B2 is the no objection certificate signed by the complainant.  Ext.B3 is the covering letter of the financier dated 18.8.08 to the enclosure of no objection certificate.  Ext.B4 is the discharge voucher dated 6.4.09 signed by the authorised signatory of Sree Ram Transport Company.

          11. On the basis of the pleadings and averments, we have gone through the evidences in this case.  There is no dispute regarding the validity of insurance policy or the damages occurred to the complainant’s vehicle due to the accident.  The only question to be considered is whether the complainant is entitled to get the amounts claimed as in the complaint.  According to the opposite parties, the insured vehicle had a hypothecation with Sree Ram Transport Finance Co.  The damages of the vehicle has been assessed by the surveyor.  The claim regarding the damages to the insured vehicle had settled by them with the financier in concurrence with the complainant.  For proving their contentions, they have produced documentary evidences Ext.B1 to B4.

          12. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to prove his complaint.  The complainant has not produced any bills to show that this much money he had spent for maintenance and repairing work of his vehicle.  The complainant failed to prove that he had sustained more amount than that of the amount paid by the opposite parties to the financier as full and final settlement of the claim.  Without any cogent evidence to substantiate the allegations raised against the opposite parties, we could not came to a conclusion that there is a deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.  In the circumstances, the complaint is not allowable, and is liable to be dismissed.

          13. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of January, 2011.

                                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                                      C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                            (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                  :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Photocopy of the policy certificate issued by the opposite parties to 

              the complainant. 

A2     :  Photocopy of advocate notice dated 20.11.2009 sent by the 

              complainant to the opposite parties.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: 

B1     :  Survey report dated 4.5.08 prepared by the opposite parties 

             surveyor. 

B2     :  No objection letter signed by the complainant. 

B3     :  Photocopy of covering letter dated 18.8.08 of the financier to 

             enclosure of no objection certificate. 

B4     :  Photocopy of discharge voucher dated 6.4.09 signed by the 

              authorised signatory of Sree Ram Transport Company.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Abraham. K.C., Karukkapparampil House,

                       (Nedungathara Vadakkethil), Thottam Bhagam,

                        Thiruvalla.

(2)  Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, DO3, Nungambakkom, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

(3)  Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

             Central Junction, Pathanamthitta.

       (4) The Stock File.