By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1.Complaint in short is as follows–

             Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-10-AW-2777 Renault Duster 85 RXL PH2 BS IV, which is insured with opposite party as per policy No. 442700/31/2018/8038 for a period from 31/07/2017 to 30/07/2018.  The vehicle met with an accident on 07/08/2017 at Ambalapadi junction near Ramanattukara Bypass, Kozhikode and the vehicle was totally damaged.   At the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by the complainant who has got valid driving license.  While he was driving the car in a most care and caution, a two-wheeler came from opposite side and hit on the vehicle. The rider of the two-wheeler was trying to escape a stray dog. Due to the impact of the accident the vehicle was totally damaged and was taken to TVS, Renault, Malappuram. Immediately after the accident it was intimated to the opposite party from the garage, and a claim form was also submitted.  Then the opposite party deputed surveyor to inspect and assess damages caused to the vehicle. The complainant approached the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 3,72,786/-, the insured amount but it was disowned by the opposite party on flimsy reasons. The opposite party send a registered letter to the complainant dated 19/06/2018 stating that the opposite party is unable to settle the claim due to four reasons.  The reasons stated in the notice was as follows:-

1. The cause of accident  reported was  due to crossing of a stray dog which resulted in loss of  control of  your vehicle and resulted in accident, whereas ,  the accident  was actually  due to  hit of motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-11-AG 3785.
2. The date of accident mentioned was on 07-08-2017, whereas, the accident took place on early hours of 31/07/2017. 
3. The third party injury mentioned was nil, whereas, there was injury to occupants of the motor cycle and they have taken treatment from Iqraa Hospital , Calicut. 
4. The actual date on the accident is also outside the coverage of insurance period. 

2.    The submission of the complainant is that the reasons to repudiate the claim is incorrect and baseless.It is submitted that the opposite party have no case that the damage caused to the vehicle was not due to an accident and so the repudiation is a clear deficiency in service.  The complainant sent a reply notice to the opposite party on 24/07/2018, in that the vehicle number was mistakenly noted and it was a clerical mistake. So, the submission of the complainant is that the repudiation of the opposite party is a clear act of deficiency in service as provided in the Consumer Protection Act and for which opposite party is liable to pay the cost and compensation to the complainant.  Complainant prays an amount of Rs. 3, 72,786/- as damages.The complainant also prayed Rs.1,00,000/- as the compensation towards hardships and mental agony caused to the complainant and prayed Rs.5000/- as cost of theproceedings. 

3.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.

4.          The opposite party admitted that they had issued a private car package policy No. 442700/31/2018/8038 in favour of the complainant covering the liability of a car bearing registration No.KL-10/AW-2777 for the period commencing from 31/07/2017 3.13PM to 30/07/2018. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had reported the accident to the opposite party and on the request of the complainant the opposite party had deputed Mr.M.Ashraf, an independent surveyor and loss assessor, holding IRDA License on the very same day itself. The expert commissioner inspected the property and submitted the report.  His assessment was for Rs. 2,32,393/- towards the expenses of the repair of the above vehicle subject to policy conditions, warranties, excess and salvage etc.  The complainant had reported before the opposite party about the alleged accident in the claim form that   “മോങ്ങത്തു നിന്ന്കണ്ണൂരിലേക്ക്പോകുന്ന വഴി രാമനാട്ടുകര ബൈപാസിv വണ്ടിക്ക്കുറുകെ ഒരു നായ ഓടി, വണ്ടിവെട്ടിച്ചു മാറ്റാu ശ്രമിക്കുന്നതിനിടെ റോഡരികിലെ മതിലിv ഇടിച്ച്‌ “.Hence the submission of the opposite party is that there is contradiction regarding the accident stated in the complaint and in the claim form.  The opposite party had deputed Mr.Althaf Hussain. V, Insurance investigator, to investigate about the accident and he reported that on 31/7/2017 at about 6.00 AM,  the car bearing Registration. No. KL-10/AW- 2777 came from Ramanattukara side and when the car reached at the place of accident called cherukulam signal  junction, a scooter bearing registration No.KL-11-AG-3785 riding by Mr.Akhil Babu came from Cherukulam to Kozhikode town and his sister  named Navya Babu was travelling on the above scooter as pillion  rider.   The above car dashed against the scooter, and pillion rider sustained injuries and scooter had damaged.  The driver lost control of the car and it dashed to a culvert and then over turned to a valley on the left side of the road.  The pillion rider of the scooter was sustained injuries and she was taken to Iqraa Hospital, Kozhikode and admitted and treated there.  The above accident was not reported to the police and the matter was settled and the owner of the car compensated the injured as well as the owner of the scooter.  The date of accident stated in the complaint is 07/08/2017 and the date shown in the complaint as well as the claim form is absolutely false and contrary to truth.  Opposite party submitted that the accident happened outside the coverage of the insurance period and the above facts were intimated to the complainant as early as on 19/6/2018. The period of insurance starts only from 31/07/2017 at about 3.13PM and the accident occurred on 31/07/2017 at about 6.00 AM and so the opposite party is not liable to settle the insurance claim of the car. The complainant has misrepresented and suppressed the material facts of the claim and so the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant.  The complainant claims that, he had spent Rs.3,72,786/- for the repair of the car  which is absolutely false and baseless.The opposite party is submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is only to wreck vengeance to the opposite party.  So, the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

5.       The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. Documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is Insurance Certificate –cum policy schedule, Policy No.442700/31/2018/8038 valid from 31/07/2017 to 30/07/2018. Ext. A2 is a letter from the opposite party dated 19/06/2018 to the complainant, Ext. A3 is copy of notice issued by complainant to the opposite party dated 24/07/2018.  Ext.A4 is postal acknowledgement receipt.  Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext.B1 to B8. Ext. B1 is Insurance certificate of Policy No.442700/31/2018/8038, Ext.B2 is a copy of survey report dated 19/04/2018, Ext.B3 is  Motor claim form submitted by the complainant before the opposite party, Ext.B4 is  copy of  report  by Insurance Investigator dated 23/04/2018, Ext. B5  is  copy of statement  issued by  Mr.Babu.T.K  to the opposite party, Ext.B6  is photocopy of  prescription  dated 31/07/2017, Ext. B7 is photocopy of Certificate of registration  of vehicle No.KL-11-AG-3785, Ext.B8  is a letter issued  by  opposite party to the complainant dated 19/06/2018.

6.       Perused affidavit and documents of the parties. The opposite party is also filed Notes of argument. The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was valid Insurance coverage at the time of accidents?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3. Reliefs and cost?

7. Point No.1

      The claim of the complaint is that his vehicle KL-10/AW-2777 Renault duster 85 RXL PH2 BS IV was insured with the opposite party as per policy No. 442700/31/2018/8038 for a period from 31/07/2017 to 30/07/2018 and which was totally damaged in an accident occurred on 07/08/2017.   The contention of the opposite party is that the accident was took place on 31/07/2017 and not on 07/08/2017. The complainant not produced any document to show that the accident took place on 07/08/2017.  But the opposite party produced Ext. B4, B5, B6 documents to show that the accident took place on 31/07/2017.  Ext. B4 is a report of  insurance investigator Mr.Althaf Husain,  he has reported that the vehicle of the complainant was  heavily damaged  in an accident  which occurred  early morning  on 31/07/2017 and not on  07/08/2017.  Ext. B5 is a statement given by one Thrikkaikkal Babu.Mr.Babu has given a statement that on 31/07/2017, while he was riding his scooter, a car bearing registration No. KL-10AW-2777 dashed against the scooter and his children sustained injuries in the accident. Ext.B6 is a prescription issued infavour of Navya Babu dated 31/07/2017 and the corresponding bill issued at about 6.43 hours on the same day.  All these documents make it appear that there was an accident on 31/07/2017 and the vehicle involved belongs to the complainant.   But the complainant not produced any reliable document to show that the accident took place on 07/08/2017.  The insurance certificate Ext. A1 produced by the complainant and Ext. B1 produced by the opposite party shows that period of insurance as from 15.15 hours on 31/07/2017 to midnight of 30/07/2018.  Hence, from the documents it can be seen that the accident took place on 31/07/2017 early morning hours and at that time there was no insurance coverage for the vehicle.  Usually, insurance policy commences from midnight of the day.  But in this matter, the policy has been issued   with specific mentioning commencement from 15.15 hours. Itis interesting to note that there was substantial damage to the vehicle in the accident occurred on 31/07/2017.  The opposite party issued the insurance policy even without verifying the vehicle condition, but strictly mentioned the commencement period of policy.As per the records available before the Commission, it cannot but to find that the accident was occurred on 31/07/2017 at early hours in the morning and there was no insurance coverage to the vehicle at the relevant time.  Hence, we find that there was no valid insurance for the vehicle at the time of accidents and the first point is answered accordingly.

8. Point No.2 & 3

           It can be seen that immediately on receipt of claim the opposite party deputed Insurance surveyor and he assessed the damages. Due to want of sufficient documents regarding the accident, investigation was done and found that there was no insurance at the relevant time of accident and accordingly repudiated the claim after properly informing the complainant.  From the facts available before the Commission, we cannot find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Since second point is against complainant, the consideration of third point does not arise and this complaint stands dismissed.