By Sri.K.Gheevarghese, President :

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the owner of a Tipper Lory No. KL 12/C 4654 which insured by the Opposite Party having coverage in between 29.6.2007 to 28.6.2008. The vehicle met with an accident on 11.11.2007 and it resulted a damages amounting to Rs.1,52,233/-. The claim of the Complainant to compensated the loss was repudiated by the Opposite Party on the ground of permit violation. The vehicle was driven at the time with all the required documents which are necessary for plying the vehicle. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to:

1. Pay the Complainant Rs.1,52,233/- the expenses met by the Complainant to repair the vehicle with an interest at the rate of 18% from 11.11.2007 till the payment.

2. Pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with cost.

2. The Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version is as follows. The insurance of the vehicle No. KL 12/C 4654, a goods carrier, is admitted and the vehicle met with an accident on 11.11.2007. The allegation of the Complainant is that Rs.1,52,233/- was spent for repairing the vehicle is incorrect. Upon information from the Complainant of the accident the Opposite Party conducted an enquiry. The net amount assessed by the surveyor in his report is Rs.1,08,030/- more over an investigator was appointed to study and report on the claim. The report filed is in such that the Tipper Lorry was used in contravention of the registration certificate, permit and policy provisions on this ground the claim was repudiated. The Extra passengers carried in the goods Tipper Lorry contributed its of role in the accident. The goods vehicle carrying more than 8 passenger is a violation of permit and policy conditions. The Tipper Lorry has its on facility to unload the goods and the workers are not required for unloading the load. The claim of the Complainant for Rs.2,50,000/- toward the damages and other costs are unreasonable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The points in consideration are:

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed affidavit swearing the allegations. Ext.A1 to A9 are the documents produced for the Complainant. The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit inter alia contenting the allegations of the Complainant. Ext.B1 to B9 are the documents marked for the Opposite Party. The Complainant and Opposite Party had given oral testimony in this case. The case of the Complainant is that the vehicle insured by the Opposite Party met with an accident and the claim of the Complainant to compensate the repair works of the vehicle was repudiated. The vehicle was plying with the workers in the platform. The Complainant is examined as OPW1 who drove the vehicle at the time of accident and he is examined as OPW2. The OPW1 to OPW3 are the witnesses examined for the Insurance Company. It is admitted that the vehicle was engaged in the transporting of bricks and after unloading the bricks while returning with the 9 loading workers in the platform the vehicle met with accident. The Ext.A7 the FIR shows that in the platform of the tipper Lorry 7 workers were aboarded and one worker was in cabin altogether including the driver there were 9 persons. The question to be decided here in is that the vehicle which is having goods permit whether entitled to ply with workers in the platform. The contentions of the Complainant is that the vehicle was in service with all necessary documents required for plying the vehicle. Ext.B6 is the policy along with terms and conditions. The policy envisages limitation as to use and the specific conditions are there for reimbursement of damages. The Administrative Officer of the Opposite party is examined as OPW3. The conditions of the policy clause 37(a) details one of the conditions required for plying of the commercial vehicle. In limitation use of the policy the terms and conditions of permit if violated the insured can disown the liability. At the time of accident in the platform of the vehicle there were 9 persons. The Complainant is not permitted to carry persons in the platform of the vehicle it is against the terms and conditions of the policy and permit. The repudiation of the claim by the insurer cannot be interfered. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and point No.1 is found accordingly.

5. Point No.2:- The insurer cannot be attributed with deficiency of service the detail discussion of point No.2 is not necessary.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cot.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th July 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the complainant :

PW1. M.K. George Complainant

PW2. Biju Driver

Witness for the Opposite Party :

OPW1. N.Sasidharan. Insurance Surveyor

OPW2. C.P.Vijayan Investigator

OPW3. K.C. Chandran Administrative Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. True copy of Registration certificate

A2. True copy of certificate of Insurance of goods

carrying (Other than 3- wh) Public carriers

A3. True copy of Goods carriage permit dt. 24.08.2006

A4. Vat invoice dt. 19.11.2007

A5. Claim form

A6. Report of Inspection of Motor vehicle

involved in an accident.

A7. Copy of FIR dt. 12.11.07

A8. Copy of Fitness certificate dt. 5.06.2006

A9. Photographs.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :-

B1. Motor claim form dt. 16.11.2007

B2 Series(7Sheets) Private and Confidential Motor (Final)

Survey report. dt. 12.02.2008

B3 Series.(3Sheets) Repairs estimates

B4 Series (4Sheets) Vat invoice dt. 13.04.2006

B5 Series(12Sheets) Investigation report

B6 True copy of policy

B7. Copy of Goods carriage permit dt. 24.08.2006

B8. Copy of Registration Certificate

B9. Photo copy of FIR.