SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT) Filed on 17/08/2007 Complainant is the registered owner of the Bajaj Minidor bearing No. KL-4U-5579. The said vehicle was the subject matter of insurance with the 151 opposite party from 3.2.2006 to 2.2.2007.The policy Number is MV/2006/10678. The vehicle in question, on 5.12.2006 met with an accident and got damaged. The 2nd opposite party was promptly informed. The said vehicle was got repaired and for the same the complainant incurred an amount of Rs.17,750/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand seven hundred and fifty only). There after the complainant along with relevant records lodged a claim before the opposite party for the damage the vehicle sustained. The opposite party repudiated the said claim vide letter 15.1.2007 on the basis of the alleged violation of terms and condition of the policy. The repudiation of claim was on flimsy grounds and in derogation of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. There is visible deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. With the result, the complainant sustained huge financial loss, hardship and mental agony. Aggrieved by the same the complainant approached this Forum seeking a direction to be given to the opposite party to settle the claim in his favor and other relief. the time of accident was not holding a valid badge which authorizes him to drive the said vehicle. As per the provisions of law a driver is entitled to obtain a badge only on expiry of one year from the date of issuance of license for driving LMV and other transport vehicle being obtained to him. The driver of the said vehicle obtained the license only on 23.5.2006. In this backdrop even if, the driver was holding a badge at the time of accident, the company was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The repudiation of the claim was reasonable as well as justifiable, the opposite party asserts. As such, there is no deficiency of service nor consequent mental agony as alleged by the complainant. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties. st opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant. The opposite parties did not opt to file proof affidavit or mount to witness box. On the side of the opposite parties, the documents Ext.B1 to B7 were marked through the complainant. Ext. B1 is the copy of the policy certificate, B2 is the Motor claim form submitted by the complainant, B3 is the Surveyors Report, B4 is the copy of the RC book, B5 is the copy of the driving licence issued by the licensing authority, Changanassery, B6 is the copy of the letter sent to the complainant intimating the repudiation of his claim and B7 is the copy of the ‘Estimate’ in respect of the repair effected to the damaging vehicle. Now the issues for consideration before us are as follows:- complainant? Admittedly, the accident took place on 5.12.2006. Going by the records placed before us, it is unfolded that the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident was none other than the complainant himself. He was holding a driving licence and a badge. At the material time of the accident, the vehicle was insured with the 1st opposite party and a valid insurance, subject to terms and condition was in force. These are all matters not literally in dispute rather admitted by the opposite parties. What is forcefully contended by the opposite party is that the driving license the complainant was holding at the time of the accident does not authorize him to drive a goods vehicle before the completion of one year from the date of the issuance of the ‘Badge’. To put it mildly, the complainant is legally permitted to drive the vehicle in question only on the expiry of at least one year after obtaining the ‘badge’. In view of the afore said contention, the short question to be looked into immediately is whether there is anything in the Motor vehicle Act or Rules which suggest that a ‘badge holder’ is pre-empted from driving a transport vehicle before a period of one year being ran out. A bare perusal of the materials placed before us particularly Ext. B6, shows that the complainant was holding a license and a ‘badge’ at the material time. Going by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules nowhere there is any suggestion to the effect that the holder of a ‘badge’ can drive transport vehicle strictly one year after its issuance. In view of the forgoing reason, we regret, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the counsel for the opposite party. Ext. B5 (page no.7) manifestly suggest that the complainant was duly authorized by a licence and a badge to drive the transport vehicles duly issued by the empowered authority. The opposite party has no case that the licence or badge was forged or fraudulently wangled. The complainant is entitled to the claim. ) was invested by the complainant to patch up the damage. However, the opposite party disputed the amount allegedly spent by the complainant. Towards this only a surveyor’s report was filed. Merely filing the report of a surveyor cannot take the place of proof. Even the affidavit of the surveyor has not been filed in the present case. As such, there is no evidence worth the name to rebut the evidence placed by the complainant as to the amount he expended to correct the damage of his vehicle. As the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to show that the complainant has not spent this much amount to get the vehicle repaired, we have no other course open but to accept the version of the complainant that he has spent a sum of Rs.17,750/- . The opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount. Pronounced in open Forum, on this the 30th day of January, 2009. Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah : Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan : Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi : Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Baburaj (Witness) Ext. A1 - Copy of the Registered letter with a/d dated 15.1.2007 Evidence of the opposite party:- Ext. B1 - True copy of the policies and condition Ext. B2 - Claim form submitted by the complainant Ext. B3 - Survey Report Ext. B4 - Copy of RC Book Ext. B5 - Copy of Driving licence Ext. B6 - Registered letter with a/d dated 15.1.2007 Ext. B7 - Copy of the estimate // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
| | [HONORABLE K.Anirudhan] Member[HONORABLE JIMMY KORAH] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt;Shajitha Beevi] Member | | 
