By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> 1. Brief say of the complainant is as follows:<br /> Complainant was the owner of KL-10J-1572 Hero honda Motor cycle and it was insured with opposite party. On 17-5-2001 a tempo van KL10-A 4808 hit the motor cycle when it was parked on the side of jubilee road, Thekkinkode, Perintalmanna. The motor cycle sustained heavy damages. No injuries were sustained to any person and therefore no First Information Report was registered. The complainant contacted Perintalmanna Police Station and was informed that if no injuries are sustained First Information Report is not required to get insurance claim. Complainant reported the accident to opposite party. A surveyor was deputed by opposite party to inspect and assess damages. That surveyor informed the complainant that the damage assessed is on salvage loss basis and complainant was directed to approach opposite party with all original documents. That opposite party stated to the complainant the value of motorcycle in the pre-accident condition is Rs.35,000/- and the value of wreck is calculated as Rs.23,000/-. Opposite party insisted the complainant to take the wreck and that opposite party would pay the balance Rs.12,000/-. That the wreck was sold at Rs.23,000/- in the presence of Surveyor, opposite party and complainant. Complainant was assured by opposite party that the balance of Rs.12,000/- would be paid to him. Opposite party repudiated the claim for Rs.12,000/- and has committed deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed version admitting the policy. That claim intimation was received only on 22-5-2001. That Surveyor was deputed to assess the damages of the vehicle. That after survey it was found that damage to the vehicle with respect to cause of accident was improbable and so enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry it is revealed that the story of collision accident is a hooked up one. The claim was thus repudiated. Opposite party has admitted that the surveyor assessed the damages to the vehicle on salvage loss basis and the market value of the vehicle in pre-accident condition was assessed as Rs.23,000/-. The net liability of opposite party was fixed as Rs.12,000/-. The claim is not bona fide and the version of accident is fake. Hence opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainant.<br /> 3. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1, Sri. Rameshkumar who is examined as a witness on behalf of complainant. Exts.A1 and A2 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B5 marked on the side of opposite party. Either parties have not filed affidavits.<br /> 4. The points that arise for consideration are (i) whether opposite party has committed deficiency in service. (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Opposite party has repudiated the claim on the ground that the version of collission accident is fake. According to the complainant the alleged accident took place on 17-5-2001. No First Information Report or other documents are produced by the complainant. Complainant submits that the reason for not getting the First Information Report registered is that no persons were injured in the accident. Opposite party admits the intimation of accident but contends that it was delayed by four days. A surveyor was deputed by opposite party to inspect the vehicle. The vehicle was inspected on 24-5-2001. It is contended that after conducting the survey opposite party appointed an investigator to enquire into the cause of the accident. Opposite party contends that the owner and driver of the tempo van alleged to be involved in the accident denied the incident. The claim is repudiated only on this ground. These contentions of opposite party are not supported and proved by any evidence.<br /> 6. Ext.B1 is the policy and Ext.B2 is the letter of repudiation dated 6-9-2001. Ext.B5 is the report of surveyor. Column eleven of Ext.B5 gives the cause and nature of the accident as under:<br /> “ On enquiry it is learnt that the insured vehicle was proceeding to Perintalmanna from Kunnappalli. On the way at the spot of accident while parked the vehicle at the side of the road for taking rest, a tempo van bearing registration No.KL10-A 4808 was came in rashly, hit and thrown off the vehicle, causing heavy damages to the motor cycle.” <br /> Thus Ext.B5 supports the case of the complainant regarding the cause and nature of accident. In page seven of Ext.B5 the assessment and recommendations for settling the claim are stated. In Ext.B5 the assessment is made on salvage loss basis. The value of the vehicle in pre-accident condition is assessed as Rs.35,000/-. The value of wreck is assessed as Rs.23,000/-. Net liability of opposite party is assessed as Rs.12,000/-. The case put forward by the complainant regarding the claim of Rs.12,000/- is proved by Ext.B5. Further PW1 a workshop mechanic has deposed in support of complainant that he has purchased the wreck for Rs.23,000/-. Opposite party though disputed the collission accident has not adduced any evidence to prove this contention. They contend that the damage would have caused due to the operation of a peril where the company is not liable. Opposite party has failed to explain and prove what is the peril if not the accident as put forward by the complainant. Complainant was ready to accept the salvage loss assessment made by the surveyor. Even then opposite party has repudiated the claim without valid grounds. We hold that this act of opposite party in repudiating the claim amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> 7. In the result we allow the complaint and order the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 6-9-2001 to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Dated this 16th day of November, 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1<br /> PW1 : Sri. Rameshkumar, Mechanic.<br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2<br /> Ext.A1 : Photocopy of the lawyer notice dated,<br /> 15-10-2001 sent by complainant's counsel.<br /> Ext.A2 : Reply notice dated, 2-11-2001 sent by <br /> Opposite party's counsel.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B5<br /> Ext.B1 : Policy.<br /> Ext.B2 : Repudiation letter dated, 6-9-2001.<br /> Ext.B3 : Motor Claim Form dated, 22-5-2001.<br /> Ext.B4 : Motor Accident Claim Intimation dated, 22-5-2001.<br /> Ext.B5 : Report of Surveyor.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br />