By. Mohammed Mustafa Koothradan, Member

1. Brief of the complaint is that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle No. KL.10.K.3141. The complainant purchased the said vehicle with a loan cum hypothecated agreement with M/s Sreeram investment Ltd, Tirur. The complainant insured the vehicle with opposite party and the policy number was 411300/31/2008/3854. It was a package policy and period of insurance was from 15/06/2007 to 14/06/2008. On 8.10.2007 the vehicle met an accident and got sustained heavy damages. Immediately after the accident the complainant intimated to the concerned police station and second opposite party's office at Manjeri. The opposite party appointed a surveyor to serve the accident vehicle and survey report produced. The vehicle was garaged for repair and the complainant spent an amount of Rs. 50,000 for repair the vehicle. Stating all these facts the complainants submitted claim petition to second opposite party with all relevant documents. But there was no response from the opposite party . The income from the vehicle was the sole source of livelihood of the complainant. So the complainant prays Rs. 50,000 as spent for repairing the vehicle , Rs.10,000 as compensation and Rs. 10,000 for mental agony.

2. Opposite party No.I and opposite party No.2 were version filed together denying all averments except those are admitted in the version. In the version opposite parties admits the insurance policy of the vehicle No. KL. 10.K.3141 and the policy period from 15.06.2007 to 14.06.2008. The opposite parties were admitting the accident and appointed a surveyor to assess the loss and damage of the vehicle. The survey report was recieved by the opposit party on 26.12.2007. As per the survey report the assessed loss was Rs.11,118/-. But the complainant did not submit the documents and bills. Becuause of the non submission of wanted documents the opposite party could not process the claim. Non co-operation of the complainant alone is the sole reason for the non settlement of the claim. The opposite party had sent a notice to the complainant stating these facts and asked to produce concerned document. But the complainant did not produced necessary documents till the date of the complaint. So there was no deficiency of service from the side of opposite party . The complainant is not entitle to get any relief from the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismiss with the cost of opposite parties.

3. Both sides the evidence adduced as affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 marked in the side of complainant and Ext. B1 to Ex t.B4 marked in the side of the opposite parties . No oral evidence adduced in the side of both parties.

4. The following points are considered in this matter

(a) There is any deficiency of serivice on the side of opposite parties?

(b) If so what is the relief and cost?

5. Point (a):-

There was no dispute upon the valid insurance of the vehicle KL10-K/3141 from 15.06.2007 to 14.06.2008 . On 18.10.2007 the vehicle met an accident and damages. There was no dispute upon the accident . The complainant take all steps for getting the insurance claim. All these things are admitted by the opposite parties. The only reason for repudiate the claim was not producing the wanted documents. Ext.A1 shows that all the copy of the documents, except the FIR, had produced by the complainant to the second opposite party. But the verification with the original has not done . May be the original documents are with the financer, because the vehicle KL10-3141 had a finance with M/S Sreeram investment Ltd, Tirur. But the opposite party can verify the document with the office file because all copy of documents would be in the office file of opposite parties, which was produced at the time of taking the insurance and these were verified at the time of issuing the insurance. There were no dispute upon the accident. So the opposite parties liable to pay compensation for the damages of the vehicle, without a valid reason the opposite parties repudiated the claim is a deficiency of service in the side of them.

6. Point (b):-

As per the complaint the complainant had spent an amount of 50,000 for repairing the vehicle KL.10.K.3141. But no document had produced to prove it. But the opposite parties appointed a surveyor for assess the damages and he had produced a detailed survey report. The survey report of the surveyor is marked as Ext. B2. As per Ext. B2 the approximate net liability for the damages of the vehicle was Rs.11,118/-. So the opposite parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.11,118/- as liability for the damages with 12% of interest per annum from the date of the complaint. No compensation ordered.

7. In the result we partly allow the complaint and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally pay Rs.11,118/- (Rupees Eleven thousand, one hundred and eighteen only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till payment along with cost of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) within 30 days from receiving the order copy.

Dated this 19th day of November, 2011.

Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1

Ext.A1 : Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule dated 05/06/2007

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext. B1 to Ext.B4

Ext.B1 : Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule dated 05/06/2007.

Ext.B2 : Details of Damages statement.

Ext.B3 (s) : The letter issued by opposite party to complainant dated 27-04-2010.

Ext.B4 : Motor Claim Forum dated 08/10/2007.

Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER