KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 41/05 JUDGMENT DATED 10-12-2007 PRESENT: JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER P.C. Chacko, 13, Middle Street, Vaman Nagar, Pondicherry, (Pannakuzhiyil House), Kanamala P.O., Pampavalley Represented by power of attorney holder : APPELLANT P.C. Mathew, Pannamkuzhiyil RPC. P.O., Mundakayam (By Adv. Sri. B.N. Sivasanker) Vs 1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Cheeranvelil Bidgs, K.K. Road, Kanjirappally. : RESPONDENTS 2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kottayam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in O.P. 268/02, who has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,10,976/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 20.8.01 alleging that the Maruti 800 car bearing register No. PY 01/P 6590 insured with the opposite parties met with an accident on 31.5.01 and the repairing charges and towing charges amounted to the sum claimed. It is stated in the petition that when he put forward the claim, it was wrongly stated that he was driving the Car whereas it was his daughter, who was driving the Car at the time. On the other hand the opposite parties/Insurance company have disputed the claim and contented that the vehicle was driven by the wife of the petitioner, who had no driving license. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext. A1 to A3 and Exts. B1 to B7 and the oral evidence of DW1, the investigator of the Company. We find that the complainant has not adduced any direct evidence as to the incident. DW1 the Investigating officer of the Insurance Company has testified as to the investigation conducted by him immediately after the matter was reported to the Company and that it was found that it was Leelamma, the wife of the complainant, who was driving the vehicle and that she had no driving license. It is also reported that two daughters of the complainant also sustained injuries and they were treated at hospital. Copies of the medical bills etc. with respect to the injuries sustained, treatment undergone by the daughters of the complainant were produced by the opposite parties. It stands unexplained as to why the complainant did not adduce any evidence, when the opposite parties have disputed the truthfulness of the allegations made by him. In the instance case there is a change of stand by the complainant as to the person, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. He has intimated the Insurance Company at first that it was he, who was driving the vehicle. Subsequently he filed a statement mentioning that his daughter is having a driving licence and that she was driving the vehicle at the time. In the circumstances, we find that the complainant ought to have adduced evidence. In the absence of evidence to prove his contention, especially in the light of the evidence adduced by the opposite parties disputing his version, the version of the complainant cannot be treated as proved. We find that there is no error in the order of the Forum. No interference is call for. The appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN, MEMBER AT. KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 41/2005 JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.07 | 
