By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No.KL 10 BC 3687 Royal Enfield Bullet. The vehicle is insured with the opposite party as per policy No. 411700/31/2021/ABRE/5368 which is valid from 05/06/2020 to 04/06/2021. While the policy was in force the vehicle was met with an accident on 17/02/2021 at about 8.30 am at Muthuvara and the vehicle was damaged. The complainant informed the accident to the opposite party and as per the instruction of the opposite party the vehicle was taken to the authorized service center at Angamalil. Thereafter the vehicle was repaired and the bill for the same submitted before the opposite party along with claim petition. Thereafter the complainant expected the reimbursement from the opposite party but he could not receive the expenses met for repairing the vehicle. After few months the complainant approhced the opposite party directly and then informed that the claim of the complainant is under processes. Since want of proper response, on 25/08/2021 issued notice to the opposite party but there was no reply. The act of the opposite party amounts deficinency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant submit that he purchased the vehicle availing personal loans from friends. Due to the act of the opposite party caused much inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. The complainant submit that he spent Rs.17, 142/- for repair of the vehicle. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to allow the said amount with interest at the rate 12% from 25/04/2021 along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. The opposite party denied the averments and allegation in the complaint and contended that the complaint is not maintainable, devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. The opposite party contended that they did not issue the policy No.71070031190860001361 in favour of the complainant covering the liability of the vehicle withs registration no. KL-10- BC-3687 and according to them the policy mentioned in the complaint has issued by the New Indian assurance company limited and the period of above policy is 06/04/2019 to 05/04/2024.
4. The opposite party submitted that the accident was not intimated by complainant to the opposite party and the opposite party has not deputed any surveyor and loss assessor to assess alleged damages of the motor cycle bearing registration no. KL-10-BC-3687 and further submitted that the complainant has not submitted any bills / vouchers to the opposite party and so the opposite party is not aware of the alleged accident.
5. The contention of the complainant that the accident was intimated to the opposite party and the bills were submitted to the opposite party by the complainant etc are false. The complainant is liable to prove the accident and the expenses for the repair of the motor cycle with reliable documents such as police records, survey records, bill and vouchers. The opposite party disputed the claim of complainant that he spent Rs.17, 142/- for the repair of the motor cycle. It is further submitted that the complaint is filed by the complainant is only to wreck, vengeance to this opposite party. The opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
6. After filing of the version by the opposite party, the complainant amended the complaint regarding the policy number as 411700/31/2021/ABRE /5368 and so the opposite party filed an additional version.
7. The opposite party contended in the additional version that the complainant approached the opposite party to issue “motorized two wheeler policy “ and the opposite party issued the policy conditions of the above policy and the complainant accepted the policy conditions of the above policy and remitted policy premium and accordingly the opposite party issued “motorized two wheeler policy“ certificate No.411700/31/2021/ABRE /5368 in favor of the complainant for the period commencing from 05/06/2020 to 04/06/2021 and the liability of the opposite party is subject to the terms, condition, exceptions and limitations’ of the policy. The opposite parties further submitted that the alleged accident was not intimated by the complainant to the opposite party and has not deputed any surveyor and loss assessor to assess the alleged damage of the motor cycle bearing registration no. KL- 10-BC- 3687 and the complainant has not submitted any bills / vouchers to the opposite party and the opposite party is unaware of the alleged accident. The opposite party denied that the complainant had intimated the alleged accident and the bills were submitted to the opposite party. The opposite party reiterated that the complainant has to prove the accident and the expenses for the repair of the motor cycle with reliable documents. The opposite party disputed the accident and the complaint is false and the complainant is not entitled for the amount claimed in several heads.
8. The opposite party denied the claim of the complainant that he had spent Rs.17, 142/- for the repair of the motor cycle and the complaint is filed by the complainant is only to wreck vengeance to the opposite party. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss this complaint with cost to the opposite party.
9. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A4. The documents on the side opposite party marked as Ext. B1. Ext. A1 is copy of insurance policy certificate issued by the oriental insurance company limited with policy No.411700/31/2021/ABRE/5368. Ext. A2 is copy of RC of vehicle no. KL 10 BC 3687. Ext. A3 is copy of lawyer notice along with postal receipt dated 25/08/2021. Ext. A4 is copy of insurance invoice dated 19/03/2021. Ext. B1 is copy of motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule issued by the oriental insurance company with policy No.411700/31/2021/ABRE /5368.
10. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit, and documents. The following points arise for the consideration.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
11. Point No.1 & 2
The case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of the vehicle No KL 10 BC 3687, Royal Enfield Bullet, which is insured with the opposite party and the vehicle was met with an accident while the policy was in force. The grievance of the complainant is that though the vehicle was damaged in the accident, the opposite party did not allow the claim for the damages. He submitted that he produced relevant documents before the opposite party.
12. The opposite party contended that the complainant did not intimate the incident of accident and damages caused to the vehicle. It is further submitted that there was no occasion to depute a surveyor to assess the damages sustained to the vehicle by deputing an insurance surveyor. The opposite party specifically contended that at any point of time the complainant did not approach the opposite party with due documents as part of the claim.
13. The Commission verified the documents produced by the complainant and opposite party. Ext. A1 and B1 are related to the insurance coverage for which there no dispute between the parties. Ext. 2 is registration certificate of the vehicle that also an admitted fact. Now what remain is Ext. A3, the lawyer notice and Ext. A4 the insurance invoice. There is also no dispute about these documents. The question is whether the complainant could establish through any of documents that the vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages to the vehicle. There is no FIR or even GD entry is produced by the complainant. There is no insurance survey report for the assessment of damages to the vehicle. It is the liability of the registered owner of the vehicle to intimate the damages caused to the vehicle to the insurance company duly. It is to be noted that in this case the complainant has not produced any document to show that he intimated the accident and provided chance to assess the damages sustained to the vehicle by the insurer. So, the complainant miserably failed to establish the vehicle met with an accident, sustained damages, intimated duly the opposite party and produced document before the opposite party. The above being the facts and circumstances, we cannot uphold the claim of the complainant and due to want of sufficient materials on record to substantiate the claim, the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 3rd day of July, 2023.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1: Copy of insurance policy certificate issued by the oriental insurance company
limited with policy No.411700/31/2021/ABRE/5368.
Ext.A2: Copy of RC of vehicle No. KL 10 BC 3687
Ext A3: Copy of lawyer notice along with postal receipt dated 25/08/2021.
Ext A4: Copy of insurance invoice dated 19/03/2021.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1
Ext.B1: Copy of motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule issued by the oriental
insurance company with policy No.411700/31/2021/ABRE /5368.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
