By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for the repairing and cost of the vehicle damaged in the accident.
2. The Complainant's case is that a vehicle No. KL 12C/149 Mahindra Scorpio is insured by Opposite Party covering the risk that the vehicle if damaged in an accident it would be compensated. The insurer retracted from the terms of assurance and the Complainant spent Rs.50,000/- for repair and other expenses.
3. For the towing of the vehicle to the service centre Rs.5,000/- was also spent. The Complainant when preferred the claim before the Opposite Party it was repudiated on the ground that the damages of the vehicle could not be compensated because the vehicle was driven at that time by person who had no valid license to drive that vehicle.
4. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The vehicle No.KL 12/C 149 at the time of accident was insured by the Opposite Party. The claim of Complainant to compensate the damages under the protection of the risk coverable by the Opposite Party is denied. The vehicle was driven by one Sajeesh. K.P at the time of accident he was not having license to drive the transport vehicle. The policy conditions and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act are grossly denied and the Opposite Party is not in a position to consider the claim of the Complainant due to the breach of policy conditions. The Complaint is not entitled to claim any amount as compensation or cost. Hence it is to be dismissed with cost.
5. Points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Ext.A1 to A6 and X1. The Complainants case is that the vehicle sustained damages in an accident when it was driven by a mechanic who was entrusted to repair the vehicle in the service centre. It is also admitted by the report Ext.X1. The vehicle was driven by the mechanic Mr. K.D. Sajeesh when it was taken for road test and hit on a jeep. The person who had driven at the time of accident had license covering the validity in the relevant period. The vehicle is of India Tourist Taxi but the person who drove the vehicle had no badge. Which is required as per the provision to drive a taxi vehicle. On perusal of the documents person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident is not having valid license to drive the transport vehicle. It is true that the accident incurred loss to the vehicle No.KL 12C 149 on 06.09.2009. The vehicle was not engaged in transport service how ever the person who drove the vehicle is not competent enough to drive the vehicle and the claim was repudiated on that ground.
In the light of the above findings, the repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Party is not interfered and the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 28th July 2011.
Date of filing:28.09.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/ Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. G. Selvaraj. Business.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Authorisation. dt:01.01.2011
A2. Copy of Bills.
A3. Copy of Letter. dt:29.11.2009.
A4. Copy of Certificate of Registration.
A5. Copy of First Information Report.
A6. Estimate. dt:05.09.2009.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
X1. Survey Report Print Full Report Accident Photos Document Photos Workshop.
