By:Sri. Mohammed Musthafa Koothradan, Member
Complainant purchased a goods autoriksha for his own use and take first class insurance from opposite party. the vehicle number is KL-55-F-299. Complainant has valid license and badge for running three-wheeler and two wheel vehicles. The vehicle got an accident on 28/03/2011 and damaged. Tirur police registered a case with crime number 234/2011. Complainant repaired his vehicle in an authorized dealer and spend an amount of Rs.12, 354.97. The complainant spent an another Rs. 4,000/ for the damaged vehicle. Then the complainant claimed this amount from opposite party, but opposite party repudiated the claim with a reason the complainant have no valid license at the time of accident. Even though the complainant produced valid license to opposite party they was not ready to give claim amount to the complainant. The complainant had valid license and policy at the time of accident, but opposite party will fully repudiated the claim. It is clean evidence for deficiency of service in the side of opposite party. So complainant claims an amount Rs. 16,354.97 as spent for repair expense to his vehicle, Rs. 3,500/ as other expenses, another Rs.20, 000 for mental agony and three thousand as the cost with 12% interest for this amount.
2. Opposite party filed version denying all allegations and averments except those are admitted here under. The valid insurance policy of KL-55-F-299, accident and claim petition and other things are admitted by the opposite party. opposite party has appointed a surveyor named Vasu.p for assessing the damages sustained to the vehicle The surveyor assessed an amount of Rs.6,603.40 for the damage of the vehicle. The opposite party requested the complainant to submit valid license of him at the material time of accident. As per the terms and conditions of policy the person who drive the vehicle at the time of accident should hold an effective driving license. The complainant submitted a driving license No.55/7461/2010 issued from ALA Tirur which is drive motor cycle with gear and autorishaw from 11/05/2010 to 10/05/2015. On the same date he was issued a badge to drive a transport vehicle from 11/05/2010 to 10/05/2015. The class of vehicle drive by the Complainant and got accident was three wheeler goods. The driving license produced on the side of the complainant does not authorize him to drive a 3 wheeler goods. So the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant. The opposite party is having a contractual obligation towards the complainant with some policy conditions. The complainant as well as opposite party is bound by some terms, conditions and limitations of these policy conditions. Driving the vehicle with valid license is one of the conditions, but complainant violated this condition. So he has no right to get the benefit under the policy. opposite party has not done any deficiency of service to the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable. So the complaint may be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.
3. Both sides have adduced evidence as affidavit and documents. Complainant filed seven documents which are marked as Ext A1 to A7 and opposite party filed five documents which are marked as Ext B1 to B5. No oral evidence adduced both sides.
4. The following points are considered in this matter.
(a):- Whether any deficiency of service in the side of opposite party/
(b):- If so what is the relief and cost?
Point (a):- The complainant was the insured/owner of the vehicle with a register number KL-55-F-299. Complainant approached the opposite party for getting own damage of his vehicle due to a road accident. Here both party have no dispute upon the policy . As per the claim form preferred by the complainant opposite party deputed a surveyor to assess the damage of the vehicle and he assessed the damage sustained to the vehicle to Rs.6,603.40/- But opposite party dispute upon the valid driving license of the complainant. According to Ext B3 the reason for repudiation of the claim was complainant had no valid license for driving goods auto. Opposite party state that the time of accident he hold a license for running motor cycle with gear and three wheeler auto only. A person holding valid license for running three wheeler auto with badge is eligible for running three wheeler goods auto also. Hence we hold that opposite party repudiated the claim without valid reasons. We do not admit the reason stated for repudiation of the claim. Complainant holding valid policy coverage and license at the time of accident and so repudiation of the claim is a deficiency of service
6. Point (b):- the complainant repaired his damaged vehicle from a authorized dealer “Ace Motors Pvt Ltd, Tirur .As per Ext A3(s) complainant spent an amount of Rs.6,855/- and with Ext A4 an another amount of Rs5,500. But surveyor assessed the damage sustained to the vehicle was an amount of Rs.6,603.40/-. In this circumstances the complainant has the right to get the amount assessed by the surveyor with a 12% interest per annum from the date of the complaint till payment along with cost of Rs.1,000. No order to compensation or other expenses
7. In this result we partly allow the complaint and order the opposite party give Rs. 6,604/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint with Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the complainant. The order must realize within one month from the date of receiving the order copy.
Dated this 30th day of November , 2012.
Sd/-
E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER, (In-Charge of President)
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A7
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of RC of the vehicle No KL-55-F-299
Ext.A2 : Photo copy of driving license of complainant
Ext A3 : Photo copy of cash bill, dated, 27/04/2011
Ext A4 : Work shop bill dated,26/04/2011
Ext A5 : Letter , The new India assurance co. Ltd. Dated, 30/4/2011
Ext A6 : Policy Schedule cum certificate of insurance
Ext A7 : Photo copy of Fir, dated,30/03/2011
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B5
Ext.B1 : Photo copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance.
Ext.B2 : Private and confidential motor survey report, dated, 02/05/2011
Ext.B3 : A letter from New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Ext.B4 : A letter from complainant dated, 10/10/2011
Ext.B5 : Notice of the Motor technical department, Eranakulam. Dated, 28/10/2011
Sd/-
E . AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER, (In-Charge of President)
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN,MEMBER
