IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.134/08 (Filed on 01.09.2008)Between: K.K. Somaraja Panicker, Seena Vihar, Pariyaram.P.O., Pariyaram Muri, Elanthoor Village. (By Adv. K.N. Sujith) .... Complainant And: 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kollam 2. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., College Road, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. P.D. Varghese) .... Opposite parties O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he is the registered owner of a 2006 Model, Honda Activa Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-3N/9867. The above said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.760903/3107/01/00000264 valid from 12.04.07 to 11.04.08 and it is a comprehensive insurance policy. While so, the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.02.08 at Chengannur in which the rider of the vehicle died and the vehicle had sustained heavy damages, which is estimated by the authorised workshop as ` 27,122. The said accident was due to a collusion with a Mini Lorry bearing Reg.No. KL.5A/9185. Chengannur police registered a crime as Crime No.60/08 for the accident. Thereafter, the complainant filed the claim form with all relevant documents before the opposite parties. But the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties citing untenable and legally not sustainable reasons. The reason cited by the opposite party for repudiating the claim is that the complainant failed to produce the driving licence of the rider. Since the rider of the vehicle is no more, it is impossible to trace out the driving licence of the deceased and this matter was also informed to the opposite parties. The repudiation of the complainant’s claim by the opposite parties is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for realising an amount of `99,000 under various heads from the opposite parties for their deficiency in service. 3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed a version with the following contentions:- Opposite parties admitted the issuance of the policy, its validity, accident and the repudiation of the claim of the complainant. On getting the claim form from the complainant, opposite parties deputed a surveyor for assessing the loss to the scooter who assessed the loss as ` 14,259.69. Opposite parties requested the complainant to produce the driving licence of the deceased who had driven the vehicle at the time of accident. But it was not produced by the complainant and he informed that the driving licence of the rider could not be traced. In case of missing of the driving licence, the complainant can obtain the abstract of the said driving licence from the concerned R.T. Office. In this premises it is to be presumed that the rider has no driving licence at the time of accident. Mere holding of an insurance policy without due observance of its conditions, warranties and limitations the holder is not entitled to get the benefits available under the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the persons driving the vehicle shall hold an effective driving licence and the insured should prove that he had not violated the conditions of the policy. In this case the complainant had not proved that the complainant has not violated the conditions of the policy. Opposite parties are ready to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor if the complainant is ready to submit the driving licence of the rider. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim is legal and the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 based on his proof affidavit and the oral deposition of DW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 and B1 and B2. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 6. The Point:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the policy certificate issued in favour of the complainant by the opposite party in respect of the insured vehicle. Ext.A2 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.60/08 of Chengannur police in respect of the accident. Ext.A3 is the copy of the work estimate prepared by the Muthoot Honda, Pathanamthitta for the repairs of the damaged vehicle. Ext.A4 is the repudiation letter dated 28.5.08 issued by the opposite parties. The complainant’s argument that he is not bound to produce the driving licence of the rider of the vehicle who is no more and since the licence is not traceable and hence he is entitled to get the claim amount. 7. Opposite parties contention is that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, a person driving should have a valid driving licence and the claimant should prove that the rider had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In this case, the complainant had not produced the driving licence of the deceased irrespective of the request of the opposite parties and the opposite parties had also intimated the complainant that they have no hesitation to allow the claim as assessed by the surveyor if the complainant is prepared to produce the driving licence of the deceased. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the copy of policy certificate issued to the complainant. B1(a) is the terms and conditions of Ext.B1 policy. Ext.B1(b) is the relevant portion in Ext.B1 showing that the persons who drives the vehicle should have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Ext.B2 is the survey report dated 6.5.08 prepared by the insurance surveyor in respect of the damages of the vehicle in question. 8. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have gone through the materials on record. The main dispute between the parties is in respect of the driving licence of the person who had driven the vehicle in question at the time of accident. According to the complainant, the person who had driven the vehicle is no more and the driving licence could not be traced and he is not bound to submit the driving licence before the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties, the claimant should prove that the person who had driven the vehicle at the time of accident should have a valid driving licence as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant failed to do so and submitted his inability to produce the licence. If the complainant is not able to produce the original of the driving licence he can obtain the copy of the driving licence from the concerned R.T. Office and the complainant is not prepare to do so also. Without getting the driving licence they are not able to allow the claim. So they repudiate the claim and the repudiated was legal and they are even ready to settle the claim if the complainant produces the driving licence. 9. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has not produced the driving licence of the deceased so far, which leads to the presumption that the deceased have no driving licence at the time of accident. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, a valid driving licence is essential for allowing the claim, but the licence is not produced. So the repudiation of the claim is legal. Hence we find no deficiency of service in the repudiation of the claim. Therefore, this complaint is not allowable. 10. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 15th day of September 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Somaraja Panicker. K.K. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Policy certificate issued by the opposite party to the complainant in the insured vehicle. A2 : Copy of FIR dated 5.2.08 in Crime No.60/08 of Chengannur police Station A3 : Copy of the work estimate prepared by the Muthoot Honda, Pathanamthitta A4 : Repudiation letter dated 28.5.08 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Mathew. M. Mathew Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Copy of policy certificate issued to the complainant. B1(a) : Terms and conditions of Ext.B1 policy. B1(b) : Relevant portion of Ext.B1. B2 : Motor Final Survey Report. (By Order)
Senior Superintendent Copy to:- (1) K.K. Somaraja Panicker, Seena Vihar, Pariyaram.P.O., Pariyaram Muri, Elanthoor Village. (2) The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Kollam. (3) Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., College Road, Pathanamthitta. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
