By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            Complainant is the registered owner of Autorikshaw bearing No. KL-11-U-4467 and he had insured the same with the opposite party for all the risks including own damage.  The above said policy is bearing No.760603760603/31/06/01/14061.  In the month of September 2007, the said vehicle met with an accident and was damaged.  Immediately after the accident, complainant informed the same to the opposite party and submitted the claim.  Complainant had also produced all the documents as demanded by the opposite party.  Opposite party had deputed their surveyor to inspect and assess the damages of the vehicle.  Accordingly the surveyor appointed by the opposite party had inspected the vehicle.  The vehicle was garaged and repaired from M/s.Ace Motors Pvt. Ltd., who is the authorized dealer of the vehicle.  Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.13400/- to rectify the damages sustained by the accident.  After completing the work complainant had produced all the original bills, vouchers and other documents to the opposite party for processing the claim.  Complainant is having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and copy and original of the same was also produced before the opposite party.  Even after complying all the procedures, opposite party did not granted insurance claim to the complainant. The action of the opposite party is definitely deficiency in service.  Therefore complainant prays to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.13,400/- towards the repair work and Rs.25000/- as compensation.

            Opposite party entered in appearance and filed version.  Opposite party admits that complainant’s three wheeler goods vehicle bearing No. KL-11-U-4467 was insured with this opposite party for a period of one year from 2.12.2006 to 1.12.2007 for covering own damage risk.  Complainant had not informed the police authorities about the accident.  The averment in the complaint that the vehicle was repaired from M/s. Ace Motors Pvt. Ltd. and complainant had spent an amount of Rs.13400/- to rectify the damages sustained by the accident is false and baseless and denied by this opposite party.  This opposite party is not liable to pay Rs.13400/- or any other amount to indemnify the complainant.  Moreover, complainant is bound to produce required documents before the opposite party for processing the claim.  Such non production of required documents by the complainant caused much loss and hardship to this opposite party.  Opposite party further submits that complainant was asked to furnish his driving licence among other documents and subsequently he submitted a driving licence which will show that he had got the licence to drive motor cycle with gear and also autorikshaw.  Since the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident was a three wheeler goods vehicle, he should have produced a licence to drive such a vehicle, which is a condition for the insurance policy.  Even after giving sufficient opportunity to the complainant, he failed to produce the licence and badge.  Therefore opposite party repudiated the claim.  Under these circumstances complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party.  Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Points for consideration:  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the opposite party?  If so, what is the relief?

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.  Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence.  Ext. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  Ext. B3 marked as subject to objection.

            While perusing Ext. B1 document, it is seen that the vehicle involved in the accident has got valid insurance at the relevant time.  The important question raised by the opposite party is that whether the complainant is having a valid driving licence to drive the three wheeler goods vehicle?  Definitely Ext. A5 shows that the complainant was authorized to drive three wheeler goods vehicle.  Ext. A4 also shows that the licencing authority issued the driving licence in favour of the complainant stating all the details in the licence.  Ext. A5 reveals that complainant had received badge on 6.1.2005.  Under these circumstances opposite party cannot absolve from their liability to pay the insurance amount.  Ext. B2 document no where challenged by the complainant.  Since the B2 document unchallenged, we are accepting the B2 survey report.  Under these circumstances, complainant is entitled to get repair charge of Rs.3644/- and Surveyor’s fee of Rs.840/-.

            Therefore petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4484/- towards the repair charge and Surveyor’s fee and also to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- towards compensation to the complainant.  Comply the order within 30 days on receipt of the copy of this order.

            Pronounced in open Court this the 29^th day of September 20089.

                                    Sd/-President                                       Sd/-Member

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1        Copy of lawyer notice sent by the complainant.

A2        Reply to Ext. A1 lawyer notice.

A3        Photocopy of letter from complainant to Public Information Officer, R.T.O.

            Kozhikode.

A4        Letter from the Licencing Authority, Kozhikode to the complainant.

A5        Photocopy of Driving licence of complainant.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1         Goods carrying commercial vehicle (open) policy B package.

B2         Survey fee bill.

B3         Photocopy of letter from Joint Regional Transport Officer, Mattancherry to O.P.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1     Abdul Asees, S/o. E. Moidikoya, Baithul Fathima, Ambalapady, ERanhikkal.

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None.

-/True/-

Sd/-President

(Forwarded/by Order)

Senior Superintendent.