By G. Yadunadhan, President:

 

            The case of the complainant is that complainant is the owner of Maruthi Car bearing registration No. KL-11/297. The car insured with the opposite party under Policy No. 571306/31/07/6120448 and Certificate No.571306/31/02/6120410. On 18-5-03 complainant had entrusted the said car for installing gas conversion kit with Prajith Automobiles, at around 1.30 A.M. on the very same day car caught fire and was badly damaged. Complainant intimated the fact before Panniyankara Police Station and Police registered a Crime No. 100/03 while he approached the opposite party, opposite party repudiated the claim. Due to the negligent act of the opposite party complainant has suffered great loss. Therefore this act of the opposite party is  deficiency of service, hence complainant is entitled to get compensation along with cost.

 

            Opposite party after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version stating that opposite party admits that the petitioner has insured a Maruthi car bearing Registration No. KL-11-K-297. Another contention is that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The owner of M/s. Prajith Automobiles where the car was caught fire is a necessary party in this case. The accident occurred while the car was in his custody and within the premises of this automobile shop. This opposite party is liable to compensate the loss only in accordance with the policy condition. Petitioner had availed insurance to his car by suppressing many material facts and thereby violated the policy conditions. First of all the car involved in the accident is a Maruthi 1000 but the petitioner got it insured as Maruthi 800. Secondly the car was running on gas which was not disclosed to this opposite party while taking the insurance. Therefore the said policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by non-disclosure of material fact. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from opposite party and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

            The points for consideration is (1) whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from opposite party? (2) If so what is the relief?

 

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A11 were marked. The Divisional Manager on the side of the opposite party was examined as RW1. The Insurance Surveyor was examined as RW2. The Investigator was examined as RW3 on the side of opposite party. Ext.B1 to B8 were marked on opposite party’s side.

 

            On perusal of Ext.A1 it shows the vehicle was used by Petrol and Gas. That was not intimated to the insurer while taking the policy or registering authority. While examination of the witness, witness deposed that there was an accident prior to 18-5-03 incident. The accident occurred on 12-5-03 was admitted by PW1. Further admits that the said car was entrusted for repair to the opposite party on 18-5-03. As per Ext.B1 policy it was taken without disclosing the material fact.  The said car fitted with gas connection without prior permission from R.T.O. Department. No documents produced by the complainant to that effect, hence a clear violation of Section-52 of Motor Vehicles Act. Under the provision of Section-52 of M.V. Act deals, no owner of a vehicle is entitled to use a fuel which is not an authorized fuel, as depicted in the certificate of registration without a prior permission of the competent authority.   Hon’ble High Court has dealt the issue in Kishor Karwankar Vs  Joint R.T.O. 2003 KLT S.N. 100. Regarding Section-52 of M.V. Act clearly define that no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. Ext.A1, B8 and B9 all those documents shows that the complainant herein used gas as a fuel without getting prior permission of the registering authority. Therefore it is a clear violation of policy condition by this Act. There is no contractual relation between the opposite party. It is very clear that permission of the competent authority is necessary for change in the fuel type. It was not done in this case. Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that since the complainant violated the policy conditions by using the gas fuel without prior permission of the authority there is no contractual liability between the opposite party as per the terms of the policy condition. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 18thday of June 2010.

Date of filing : 10-03-2004

 

 

            SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER           SD/- MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

 A1. F.I.R.

 A2. Scene Mahasser

 A3. Letter dt. 27-7-2003 by Surveyor T.K.A. Kutty

 A4. Estimate Copy

 A5. Letter dt. 6-11-2003 by O.P. to the complainant.

 A6. Letter dt. 8-12-2003 by O.P. to the complainant.

 A7. Lawyer notice to O.P. with postal receipt and acknowledgement.

 A8. Insurance receipt.

 A9. Copy ot R.C.

A10. Lawyer notice by Kenfin Finance to complainant.

A11. Report from F.S.L. Trivandrum.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1. Certified true copy of Policy and conditions.

B2. Photocopy of F.I.R.

B3. Photocopy of claim form filed by complainant.

B4. Photocopy of letter by O.P. to complainant.

B5. Photocopy of letter by O.P. to petitioner.

B6. Photocopy of Scene Mahasasar.

B7. Photocopy for R.C.

B8. Survey Report.

 

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. K.P. Subin (Complainant)

 

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1. Divisional Manager of O.P.

RW2. T.K.A. Kutty (Surveyor)

RW3. Haridasan Nair (Investigator)

 

                                                                                    Sd/- President

 

                                                // True copy //

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.