6.It is a well settled position that insurance policy is a contract and one has to live within the terms of contract. Whatever be the damage caused to the vehicle, there is a clear violation of the terms of policy. The act of PW1 in driving the van carrying one more person in a goods carriage vehicle meant solely for the carriage of goods is in contravention of the terms of the policy conditions.<br /> 7.Another contention putforward by the opposite parties is that, at the time of the accident, the driver and the other person in the vehicle were under intoxicating liquor. The opposite parties have come to this conclusion of intoxication on the basis of Ext.D3. Ext.D3 is a report submitted by a private detective agency. The report of the private investigator could not be looked into, since there was nothing to show that the private investigator was licensed and moreover the opposite party has failed to prove that document.<br /> 8.Ext.P6 is alleged to be the treatment record of PW1. From Ext P6 one cannot make out from which hospital that has been issued since it does not bear the name of the hospital, name of the doctor or seal etc. On going through the deposition of PW1, on page 6, PW1 has deposed that എനിക്ക് തലയുടെ നെററിഭാഗത്ത് ഇടതുവശം പൊട്ടി.രണ്ടു കവിളുകളിലും glass പൊത്തുകയറി. തുടഭാഗം ചതഞ്ഞു. It is unimaginable that a person with such injuries did not get admitted in the hospital. Though the complainant has sworn in his affidavit that the driver of the vehicle was admitted in the medical college hospital, no records pertaining to the same has been produced by the complainant. Ext.P6 is only a scrap of paper. It is very hard to believe that Ext.P6 is the treatment record from the Medical College Hospital. Hence it is apparent that the complainant has not come with clean hands. If at all the driver was treated in the Medical College Hospital, the complainant could produce the treatment record before the Forum. The non-production of the medical treatment records lead this Forum to come to the irresistible conclusion that there is suppression of material facts vitiating the policy itself. <br /> 9.It is a settled position that once it is found that insurer had duly considered all the relevant facts and circumstances and taken a decision as to whether the claim putforward by the insured under the policy should be allowed to any extent, it cannot be said that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the insurer in relation to the performance of its duties under the terms of contract. In the instant case also, investigation was got conducted by the opposite parties regarding the claim of the complainant and on the basis of the available materials have come to the conclusion that there has been violation of policy conditions and hence repudiated the claim. The opposite parties have proved that the complainant was guilty of negligence and failed to fulfill the conditions of the policy regarding use of goods carriage vehicles. In these circumstances the opposite parties cannot be held liable for compensating for any loss sustained by the complainant. In our view the Insurance Company was right in repudiating the claim and it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim, not withstanding the fact that the occurrence and loss have not been controverted.<br /> 10.Point No.(ii): In the above circumstance the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs claimed in the complaint.<br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 24th day of March, 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 389/03<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I.Complainan t's witness:<br /> <br /> PW1 : JOY<br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> <br /> 1.Ext.P1 : Photocopy of RC book of Bajaj pick up autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-01-N-9473<br /> 2.Ext.P2 : Photocopy of the insurance policy No.760502/31/02/06161<br /> 3.Ext.P3 : Photocopy of GD Extract of Kazhakkuttom Police Station on 26.12.02 <br /> <br /> 4.Ext.P4 : Photocopy of case sheet dated 26/12/02 No.166724 of Medical College Hospital.<br /> <br /> 5.Ext.P5 : Photocopy of bill for labour charge for repair dated 27/12/02<br /> <br /> 6.Ext.P5(a) : Photocopy of bill for spare parts dated 27.12.02 <br /> 7.Ext.P5(b) : Photocopy of bill dated 23.01.2003<br /> 8.Ext.P5(c) : Photocopy of cash bill dated 22.01.03 of Rs.4224. <br /> 9.Ext.P5(d) : Photocopy of cash bill of Deedi Automobiles<br /> <br /> 10.Ext.P6 : Original case sheet of Sri.Joy dt. 26.12.02<br /> <br /> III.Respondents' witness: <br /> DW1 : V. Murali<br /> IV.Respondents' documents:<br /> <br /> D1 : Letter dated 02.04.2003 from Joy K.Francis to the Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd.<br /> D2 : Photocopy of Motor Survey Report (Final) dated 15.02.2003.<br /> D3 : Photocopy of investigation report from System Detective Agency Pvt.Ltd. Dated 06.02.03<br /> D4 : Letter dated 15.05.2003 issued to the complainant from New India Assurance Co.Ltd.<br /> D5 : Advocate notice issued Administrative Officer, New India Assurance Co.Ltd,Tvpm. dt. 18.08.03.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br />