By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case of complainant is that the vehicle of complainant bearing No.KL8-T-6414 was insured with the respondents company vide Policy No.760301/31/01/81177. The insurance coverage of the policy was from 2/1/02 to 1/1/03. The insurance premium amount was Rs.1,514/-. On 7/3/02 the vehicle was involved in an accident and damage was caused to the vehicle. After that with the consent of the respondent it was repaired and the complainant applied to get the claim amount. But it was not given. The Surveyor assessed the approximate net loss as Rs.4,237.27. The complainant was caused to send a lawyer notice dated 25/3/02. But no reply was received. The claim is not settled so far. Hence the complaint.
2. The averments in the counter are that the respondent denies the occurrence of accident on 7/3/02 as stated in the petition. The averment that the vehicle was repaired with the consent of this respondent is also denied. The respondent was not informed about the accident. This respondent had no occasion to give consent for repairing. The story of the accident is concocted to claim the insurance amount. The respondent denies damages to the vehicle. The respondent does not admit the damages and loss caused to vehicle due to accident. The damages of Rs.7,950/- and approximate net loss of Rs.4237.27 stated in the petition are not true. The bills and labour charges produced are fabricated. The prices noted are exorbitant. The repaired parts are not new one. So these kind of petition can not be entertained by this respondent. The respondent is not received any proper notice in time from the petitioner. The story of accident, bills produced and labour charges pointed out in the automobile bill are fabricated one. The police has not registered a case with regard to the allegation of the accident. There is no hospital report. The complainant has to prove the alleged accident and cause of damages to the vehicle by adducing documentary evidence. The complainant driven the vehicle without a valid licence at the time of accident. Other particulars of the vehicle also not proper during the relevant period. This respondent admit the policy of the vehicle KL8-T-6414 and the liability if any are admitted to the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are :
1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondent ?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 and P2 and Exhibits R1 to R5.
5. Points: It is the case of complainant that his vehicle KL-8-T-6414 was insured with the respondent company vide policy No. 760301/31/01/81177. It has a policy coverage from 2/1/02 to 1/1/03. The vehicle was involved in an accident on 7/3/02 at Pazhayi and damage was caused to the vehicle. The fact of insurance and the coverage of the policy are admitted by the respondent. The issue of accident is denied by the respondent totally. According to the respondent there was no police case in consequent to the accident and the accident was not informed to the respondent. The respondent is denying the accident by stating that the story of the accident is concocted to claim the insurance amount.
6. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his pleadings. He claims an amount of Rs.8719/- as the loss assessed and compensation also. He has produced Exhibit P1 and P2 documents to prove his claim. Exhibit P1 is the lawyer notice sent to the company and Exhibit P2 is the copy of driving licence. The respondent who has totally deny the occurrence of accident produced 5 documents which are marked as Exhibits R1 to R5. Exhibit R3 is the claim form submitted to the company by complainant. It is stated in Exhibit R3 about the details of damage caused to the vehicle. Estimated cost of repairs also stated as Rs.3,000/-. It is also stated the place where the damaged vehicle be inspected. If there was no accident as alleged by the respondent this clause will remain blank. There is no evidence produced by the respondent to show that these information disclosed in the Exhibit R3 claim form is untrue. No investigation is seen to be conducted by the respondent. There is also a quotation submitted by the complainant to the respondent from Aajaykrishna Automobiles . The total charges given as Rs.4,300/- . As per the record the respondent also failed to find out the truth behind the quotation. The respondent simply denied the occurrence of the accident and failed to prove their contention.
7. The complainant produced copy of driving licence and it is marked as Exhibit P2. It would show that the validity of the licence was from 15/5/93 to 14/5/96. It is seen renewed from 20/3/02 to 19/3/05. The date of accident was on as statement of complainant 7/3/02. As stated by the respondent in their counter the driver who was driven the vehicle at that time had no valid licence. As per Exhibit R2 the terms and conditions of the policy the driver must hold an effective driving licence in accordance with the law. In the present case the driver had renewed the licence after the occurrence of the accident and so the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the company.
8. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 22nd day of July 2010.
