SRI. SAJEESH.K.P  : MEMBER

    This complaint filed under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against the  OP  to pay %Rs.5,50,000/- with interest @12% per annum to the complainant and to pay cost of the litigation.

     The complainant in brief :-   According to the complaint,  on 30/12/2019 the complainant met with an accident while riding her scooty along with her husband as  pillion rider and she sustained grievance injuries and was taken to Tejaswini Hospital, Mangalore on 31/12/2019 and treated  there at 6/1/2020.  The complainant sustained 15% permanent  whole body disability.  The Kelakam police registered the crime as crime  No.9/2020 against  complainant relating to the accident.  The complainant was the RC owner of Honda Activa scooty bearing No.KL 78/7688 got valid licence at the time of accident and  scooty got valid insurance coverage with OP bearing policy No.P0020300027/4113/109841.   But the OP failed to disburse the claim of  compensation which the complainant was entitled to get under the  head of personal accident coverage.  As per the norms of policy complainant is entitled to get 15 lakhs rupees along with 15% interest and one lakh fifty thousand  rupees towards the medical expenses and treatment expense which the OP denied to pay even after repeated demands by complainant through lawyer notice as well as her many failed attempts.  Hence this complaint.

   After filing the complaint, notice was issued to OP and it was duly served.  The opposite party not appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  Ultimately the commission had to held that OP has no version in  this case and the case came to  be  proceed against the OP as  exparte. 

         Even though, the opposite party has remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  OP.  Hence the complainant called to  adduce  evidence in the form of proof affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the complainant  has chosen to produce her affidavit along with documents marking as Ext.A1to A10 and X1 produced .  Complainant examined as PW1.  The Op  remained absent  in this case.  At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

      The   documents produced by the complainant are  Ext.A1 the photocopy  of FIR,  Ext.A2  the copy of   accident register cum wound certificate.  Ext.A3 is the copy of RC of  Honda Activa  scooty  KL 78/7688.  Ext.A4 is  copy of policy insurance certificate  issued by OP to the complainant.  Ext.A5 is copy of lawyer notice.  Ext.A6 is postal receipt.Ext.A7 is the Acknowledgment card.  Ext.A8 is  copy of licence.  Ext.A9 is the discharge summary.Ext.A10 series are medical bills(11in Nos.) and Ext.X1 is the Disability certificate.

  On the perusal of  documents produced by the complainant Ext.A1  the photocopy  of FIR describes about the accident happened to the complainant and  Ext.A2 is the copy of   wound certificate issued by Tejaswini Hospital Mangalore when the complainant underwent for treatment shows the nature of  grounds sustained by complainant.  Exts.A1&A2 reveals the facts those stated in the complainant is true.  But on the perusal of Ext.A3&A4 it is seen that  the registered owner of vehicle which is involved in the accident bearing number KL78/7688 belongs to Joseph.A.T and the  policy bearing No.P00203000027/4113/109841 is  insured in the name of  Joseph A.T.   No where in the Exts.A3&A4, the complainant’s name is mentioned. In the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit filed by complainant, she categorically stated that she is the owner and insurance policy holder of the vehicle at the time of accident.  So the averment regarding the ownership  certificate and insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident  hold by complainant is not proved since both are in the name of a person called  Joseph A.T.  By the sense complainant is not a consumer of opposite party as per the Exts.A3&A4 and hence there is no contractual liability arise between complainant and opposite party. Since the complainant failed to prove the credibility of Exts.A3&A4,  the commission is not supposed to peruse the other exhibits like medical bills and disability certificate.  Hence the commission came into a conclusion that complainant is not entitled to  get the relief as claimed in the petition,  complainant failed to prove the  case as stated in the complaint  even though it was  an exparte case.

         In the result the  complaint is dismissed.

Exts

A1- photocopy  of FIR. 

A2- copy of   accident register cum wound certificate

A3- copy of RC

A4- copy of policy issued

A5- copy of lawyer notice.

A6 -postal receipt.

A7-e acknowledgment card.

A8 -copy of license.

A9-discharge summary.

A10 series - medical bills(11in Nos.)

X1 - Disability certificate.

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                             Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                                 MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                                      Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                   /Forwarded by Order/

                                                     SENIOR  SUPERINTENDENT