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