O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle Mahindra Scorpio 2006 Model bearing Registration No. KL05 W 8490 having chasis No. MAIT B – 2BSL 62 F – 78509 and engine No. BS 64 F 27758. The said vehicle met with an accident at Udumal Pet, Tamil Nadu on 20..10..2007. After the accident the vehicle was brought to Kottayam and entrusted to the authorized Service Centre TVS, Kottayam and prepared an estimate of Rs. 14,03,350/- for the cost of the repairing of the vehicle. The total value fixed by the Insurance company for the -2- purpose of claim on own damage is Rs. 5,50,001/-. The complainant has lodged the claim and the opposite party issued a letter Dtd: 21..5..2008 stating that untenable reasons. The reason stated for repudiation is that the vehicle did not have valid permit to ply in Tamil Nadu. According to the complainant the vehicle is having valid permit and all the requirements under the law is complied to ply the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle died at the time of accident. The driver had taken permit from the concerned RTO when he entered in to the state of Tamil Nadu. After the accident all the documents and valuables including the permit kept in the vehicle were lost as nobody attended the vehicle after the accident. The original RC book was in the custody of R.T.O, Pollachi and that was received by the complainant later. The complainant was not able to produce the receipt for the payment of entry tax and for the purpose of the release of the vehicle and therefore he was forced to pay the fine in the concerned R.T.O. The opposite party is well aware of these facts and they have intentionally repudiated the lawful claim with an ill motive for unlawful gain. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the insurance amount Rs. 5,00,001/- with 18% interest, compensation Rs. 10,000/- and cost. First and second opposite parties entered appearance and filed version together with the following main contentions: i) The liability of the insurance company is only as per the terms and conditions of the policy. ii) The estimate and cost for repairing the vehicle claimed by the petitioner is false. The IDV of the vehicle is Rs. 5,50,000/- only. iii) The opposite party damaged permit and other records but the complainant has not even produced the permit of the vehicle No. KL-5/W-8490 for plying in Tamil Nadu. The vehicle No. KL-5/W-8490 is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle and as per the provisions of MV Act permit is necessary. iv) The place of accident is in Tamil Nadu and the vehicle has no valid permit for Tamil Nadu. This is a violation of policy condition. The repudiation is true and correct and therefore the company is not liable to the claim. v) The averment to the effect that after the accident all the documents and valuables kept in the vehicle are lost are false. The vehicle inspection report of the Tamilnadu Transport Department clearly states that “no valid permit is in Tamil Nadu state and the tax due to Tamil Nadu was not paid. For that the original RC book temporarily seized and enclosed herewith. The original RC book may released from R.T.O, Pollachi”. This shows that the claim of the complainant is false. vi) The complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose and not for his self-employment and therefore complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation. The opposite parties contented that there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence the petition is to be dismissed with cost of proceedings. Points for considerations are: i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and exhibits A1 to A3 and B1 to B3. -4- Point No. 1 Heard the arguments of both counsels and went through the entire material placed on record. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the driver of the vehicle had taken permit from the concerned RTO when he entered into state of Tamil Nadu. The complainant’s counsel again submitted that as the driver of the vehicle had died on spot, it was difficult to find out through which check-post the vehicle entered to Tamil Nadu. The learned counsel for complainant further submitted that the complainant was not able to produce the entry tax receipt and was forced to pay fine in the concerned RTO for release of the vehicle. Whereas the counsel for the opposite parties contented that the vehicle No. KL-5/W-8490 is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle and as per the provisions of MV Act permit is necessary. The learned counsel further contented that the said vehicle had no valid permit for Tamil Nadu and it is violation of policy condition. The complainant produced the copy of repudiation letter and it is marked as exhibit A3. As per exhibit A3, the claim was repudiated stating reason that the vehicle did not have the valid permit to ply in Tamil Nadu state which is a violaltion of the policy conditions. The opposite parties produced a copy of the vehicle inspection report and it is marked as exhibit B2. As per exhibit B2, first irregularity mentioned in it is “no valid permit to ply in Tamil Nadu state and tax due to Tamil Nadu not paid”. The copy of policy certificate cum policy schedule is produced by both the parties and the same is marked as exhibit A1 & B1. As per the conditions of the policy, the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of MV Act 1988. No doubt, every citizen has right to travel from Kerala to other states in a legal manner by obtaining the legal and relevant documents. Even though the complainant averred that the driver of the vehicle had taken permit from the concerned RTO when he entered into the state of Tamil Nadu, no scrap of paper is placed on record by the complainant to prove the aforesaid averment. -5- In this instant it is established on record from Ext. B2 inspection report that the vehicle No. KL-5/W-8490 had no valid permit to ply in Tamil Nadu state. So, we find that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. We are of the view that the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy and they cannot travel beyond the conditions of the policy. Violation of conditions of policy is a valid ground for the repudiation of an insurance claim. So, we cannot find any irregularity or illegality on the part of opposite parties. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No.2 In view of the findings in point No. 1 the petition is ordered as follows: Petition is dismissed . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation ordered. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the Petitioner: Ext. A1: The copy of the policy certificate Ext. A2: The estimate for repairing the vehicle. Ext. A3: Letter Dtd: 21..5..2008 issued by opposite party. Documents of the opposite parties: Ext. B1: Copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ext. B2: Copy of vehicle inspection report Ext. B3: Copy of the survey report By Order, Senior Superintendent.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
