<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint is filed by the complainant to pay the damages of Rs. Two lakhs and other reliefs. It is stated in the complaint as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant has taken a policy bearing No.760905/31/03/07676 in respect of her vehicle in Reg. No.KL-02/Q 9640. As per the terms of the policy the opp.party is responsible for all the loss of or parts of the lorry in use to indemnify the insured. On 8.5.2004 the fuel injunction pump of the lorry was lost while the vehicle was in use of the complainant filed a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police Chavara and a G.D entry was made the extract of G.D with the claim form with report submitted to the opp.party scheme compensation for the loss of the fuel injunction pump. But the opp.party evade the responsibility of indemnify the loss of the fuels and particular contentions.. The opp.party is liable to indemnify the insured for the loss sustained. The contact t of the opp.party amount the lack of services and deficiency in service as per the policy conditions. Due to acts of the opp.party the complainant sustained serious mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complaint. <br /> <br /> The opp.party filed version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the opp.party had issued a policy in favour of the complainant in respect t of the vehicle for the period from 10.10.2003 to 9.10.04. The statement that the opp.party is liable to indemnify the insured for the loss of parts of the lorry, is true subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. As per clause 2 of the terms, Expectations and conditions of the policy. The opp.party is bound to indemnify to the complainant only if loss or damages to accessories by burglary, house breaking or theft unless such motor vehicle is stolen at the same time. The details of theft of fuel injunction pump of the vehicle , police complaint etc. are not within the knowledge of this opp.party and hence denied. The complainant must prove allegations with proper evidence. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. The claim of the complainant was repudiating for valid reasons. Hence the opp.party prays for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> [i] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party<br /> [ii] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined and Ext.D1 and D2 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points [i] & [ii]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The contentions is the complaint is that the fuel injunction pump of the lorry which was insured with the opp.party was lost for which the complaint was filed before the Chavara police station. And though the opp.party is bound to indemnify the complainant repudiate the claim without any valid reasons. According to the complainant by virtue of the terms of the policy she is entitled to get compensation. The complainant however, has not produced either in policy with enables her to claim compensation or the extract of G.D entry or the statements showing the computation of the loss cost due to the lost of the fuel injunction pump and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for the none production of the same. The copy of the order repudiating the claim is also not produced. Though it is admitted by PW.1 in cross examination that the G.D entry will be produced the same was also not produced for reasons burnt none to the complainant<br /> <br /> The definite contention of the opp.party that by virtue of the clause 2[a] of Ext.D2 the policy conditions, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for loss only if loss of or damage to accessories by burglary house breaking or theft unless motor vehicle is stolen at the same time. As argued by the opp.party the complaint failed to prove the theft of the accessories or the lost incurred by her by producing project documentary evidence. In this circumstance we are inclined to hold that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. As such the complainant is not entitled to get any damages or compensation is prayed for.<br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances we make no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 13th day of November, 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI: <br /> <br /> <br /> ADV. RAVI SUSHA :<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Forwarded/by Order,<br /> <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant:<br /> PW.1. – Resmi Pillai<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant : NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – Rudran Nair.<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parlty<br /> D1. – Lorry’s Insurance Policy<br /> D2. – Terms Expectation and conditions<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K. Vijayakumaran Achari :<br /> <br /> <br /> Adv.RaviSusha :