By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant is the registered owner of Hyundai Car bearing Reg. No. KL-12-K-1934. He had insured this vehicle with Opposite Party. The vehicle was sustained damage in an accident happened on 08.04.2017 at Thanerimukku, Pinangode. Thereafter, Complainant carried out it’s repair work for Rs.1,19,109/- at Classic Hyundai, Thazhemuttil. The accident was reported to the Opposite Party and their Surveyor inspected the vehicle on 12.04.2017. Though the Complainant submitted all the documents to Opposite Party on 23.08.2017, Opposite Party repudiated the claim stating that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license and that there was intentional misrepresentation and suppression of facts. The Complainant was holding driving license No. 12/686/1993 and due to some inadvertent omission on his part, it was not renewed within time. The Complainant is a driver for long time and non renewal of license will not take away his expertise. Therefore, the Complainant sent a registered notice on 25.10.2017 to the Opposite Party through his counsel. On receipt of the notice, the Opposite Party sent a frivolous reply on 04.11.2017. But, they have not given the insurance claim. So there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Hence, the Complainant claims Rs.1,19,109/- towards the repairing charge with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation from the Opposite Party. Hence, this complaint.
3. The Opposite Party filed version which is in short as follows:-
They admitted that the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-12-K-1934 and he had insured the vehicle with the Opposite Party. They also admitted the accident and damage caused to the vehicle of the Complainant. The Complainant had no valid and effective license on 08.04.2017 on the date of accident. The license of the Complainant was expired on 19.03.2017 and he had renewed his license only on 11.05.2017. This is a clear violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, the Complainant suppressed the manner of the accident and submitted that at the time of accident the car was parked and then the KSRTC bus had hit on the car. Actually, the accident was happened while the car was overtaking the KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KL-15-K-1934 which was stopped in the bus stop to alight passengers. The car had hit on the right side back of the KSRTC bus. Minor damages were caused to the KSRTC bus and damage was caused to the front side of the vehicle of the Complainant. So, the wrongful act of the Complainant was the actual cause of the accident. The Complainant had paid Rs.500/- towards compensation to the KSRTC. Therefore, since the driver had no valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and there was suppression of material facts related to the accident, this Opposite Party repudiated the claim. Without prejudice, the Opposite Party further submits that the Surveyor assessed the actual damage as Rs.1,12,987/- which is not the amount claimed by the Complainant and therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get Rs.1,19,109/- with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/- as alleged. So the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite
Party, if so, whether the Complainant is entitled to get
anything from the Opposite Party as prayed for?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1 to A9, Ext. B1 and Ext.X1 series. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle KL-12-K-1934 which was insured with Opposite Party. It is also admitted that the vehicle was met with an accident on 08.04.2017. The Complainant filed this complaint to get the insurance claim alleging that he had incurred an expenses of Rs.1,19,109/- towards the repairing charge of the vehicle. Though, the Opposite Party admitted the claim to the tune of Rs.1,12,987/- as suggested by their Surveyor, they repudiated the claim stating that the driver of the vehicle has not a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and there is suppression of material fact. It is an admitted fact that at the time of accident, the Complainant was driving the vehicle and he had no valid license. He admitted that due to inadvertence, he omitted to renew his license during the period of accident. It is evident that subsequent to the accident, the Complainant renewed his license on 11.05.2017. So, as we already stated, admittedly the Complainant had no valid and effective license on 08.04.2017.
7. To prove the case of the Complainant, Complainant was examined as PW1 and to disprove the case of Complainant, the present Branch Manager of Opposite Party was examined as OPW1. It is the case of the Complainant that after the repudiation of the claim, he has sent a lawyer notice to Opposite Party and Opposite Party denied his claim by sending a false reply. Ext.A2 is the copy of the notice and Ext.A3 is the reply notice. Ext.A1 is the Repudiation Letter. In Ext.A3, the Opposite Party took the same contentions that the Complainant had no valid and effective license at the time of accident and he suppressed material fact. OPW1 has also given evidence to support this fact. According to Opposite Party, since the Complainant had no valid license on the date of accident, he violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thus he is not entitled to get the insurance claim. There is no dispute that the Complainant done the repair works of the vehicle for Rs.1,19,109/- and still he has not get insurance claim. Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 are the estimates for the work. Ext.A6 is the copy of RC book of the vehicle of the Complainant. Ext.A7 is the copy of Policy Certificate. Ext.A8 is the Invoice of the repair work. Ext.A9 is the report of the Surveyor of Opposite Party. It is seen from Ext. A9 that the Surveyor assessed the damages as Rs.1,13,987/-. So, if there is no violation of condition, we think that the Opposite party has no objection to give the said amount.
8. But the Opposite Party vehemently argued that since, the Complainant has no valid and effective license, he is not entitled to get this claim and he suppressed the material fact. Ext.A7 is the Policy Certificate. Ext.B1 is the Terms and Conditions of the Policy. Though the Complainant admitted that he has no valid and effective license at the time of accident, according to him, he is an expert driver and insurance claim cannot be denied stating that he has not renewed the license in time or he has no valid driving licence at the time of accident. But, Motor vehicles Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license authorising him to drive the vehicle. So also, Ext. B1 mandates that persons or classes of persons entitled to drive are the persons who hold an effective driving license at the time of accident. Therefore, the Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of the policy, Ext. B1 provides that the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident should have a valid and effective driving license. That is so, the Complainant is not entitled to argue that as an expert driver, insurance claim cannot be denied to him stating that he has not renewed the license or he has no valid licence at the time of accident. He is only entitled to get the insurance claim, if he has a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. If, otherwise, we cannot attribute any fault upon the Opposite Party if they repudiated the claim of the Complainant stating that the Complainant had no driving license at the time of accident.
9. The other allegation is the suppression of fact. The Opposite Party contented that the Complainant twisted the manner of accident. Opposite party contended that actually, the accident was happened while the car was overtaking the KSRTC bus which was stopped in the bus stop to alight passengers. According to them, instead of this, the Complainant submitted that at the time of accident the car was parked and then the KSRTC bus hit on the car. Ext. X1 series contains the investigation report of the Investigator deputed by the Opposite Party. The Investigator found that the accident was occurred when the car was overtaking the KSRTC bus which was stopped in the bus stop to alight passengers. There is no contra evidence or materials to reject or discard this finding. The Complainant has also not challenged this report. So it is proved that Complainant has suppressed the material facts. So it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party in repudiating the claim of Complainant for the reasons aforesaid. So the Complainant is not entitled to get any benefit under the insurance policy. Hence the Point No.1 is found against the Complainant.
10. Point No.2:-Since, Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April 2022.
Date of Filing:-14.01.2019.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. K. Mamutty. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Jithin Vijay.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Repudiation Letter. Dt:23.08.2017.
A2. Lawyer Notice. Dt:25.10.2017.
A3. Reply Notice.
A4. Copy of Estimate for the Body Repair Work. Dt:08.04.2017.
A5. Copy of Additional Estimate for the Body Repair Work.
Dt:27.04.2017.
A6. Copy of Registration Certificate.
A7. Copy of Certificate of Insurance Private Car Package Policy.
For the period of 28.09.2016 to 27.09.2017.
A8. Invoice. Dt:29.04.2017.
A9. Motor Survey Report. Dt:22.05.2017.
X1(Series). Documents Produced by Opposite Party(36 Pages).
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Private Car Package Policy for the period of 28.09.2016 to
27.09.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
