Date of filing : 26-04-2010
Date of order : 30-11-2010
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.104/10
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2010
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Usman,
S/o. Ibrahim, Zainabi Manzil,
Meepugeri, Ramdas Nagar, Kudlu, } Complainant
Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
(Adv.George John Palmootil, Kasaragod)
The Oriental General Insurance Co.Ltd, } Opposite party
D.03, No.7, Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Rosy Towers, 2nd floor, Chennai 600034.
(Adv. A.K.V. Balakrishnan, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER
The facts of the complaint in brief is as follows:-
That the complainant is the RC Owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL.14-D-5591 and the vehicle is insured with the Oriental Insurance Company which is hypothecated to Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. It met with an accident on 30-03-2007 and the said fact is intimated to the opposite party and to the concerned police station. The authorized surveyor of the opposite party surveyed the vehicle and the opposite party agreed to indemnify the loss. For the repair and labour charge complainant spent `45,000/- and he submitt6ed the claim before the opposite party but opposite party did not settle the claim. Then the complainant send a lawyer notice asking to pay the compensation. But the opposite party has not paid the compensation so far. Hence this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
2. The opposite party duly received the notice issued by the Forum, appeared through their counsel Sri. A.K.V. Balakrishnan and filed vakalat and version.
It is admitted in the version that the policy of the complainant with the opposite party is in force, but they denied the intimation of accident to the opposite party. The opposite party denied that their authorized surveyor inspected the vehicle after receiving of the claim form. The opposite party further submits that the complainant had not mentioned the garage where the repair of the vehicle done and not produced any bills or the survey report or MVI report for proving the accident and damage. It is further submitted that the claim is not repudiated since there is no accident and it is in collusion with the financier a false complaint is filed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party received a lawyer notice from the complainant which is duly replied. Since there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party. In this case the complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 marked and on the side of opposite party one witness is examined as DW1 and Exts B1 and B2 documents marked. On considering the above evidence the issues raised for consideration are:
2. 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) If so, what is the order as to compensation and cost?
3. The specific case of the complainant is that his motor accident claim is neither repudiated nor approved by opposite party. But according to opposite party since there was no accident then there is no question of repudiation arise. To prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed Exts A1 to A5 documents. Ext.A1 is the copy of the registered lawyer notice issued to the opposite party, Ext.A2 postal receipt and Ext.A3 is the Motor Insurance Policy certificate cum policy schedule and Exts A5 is the photocopy estimate prepared by Manju Mahima Auto Works. Here there is no documentary evidence before the Forum to show that the vehicle met with an accident. It is also not specified in the complaint as well as in proof affidavit from where the vehicle was repaired. The complainant issued Ext.A1 lawyer notice only after completing a period of two year from the date of accident. While cross-examining PW1 he deposed that garage from where the vehicle got repaired. To prove that complainant filed Ext.A5 document is photocopy of estimate for repair prepared in the letter head of Manju Mahima Auto works. Ext.B5 neither shows any signature or seal of the workshop nor examined the person who prepared and issued the estimate. Moreover, the complainant stated in his complaint that the arrear of loan from 2004 onwards is pending due to the accident. The accident was in the year 2002.
4. After considering the above facts we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove the accident. Hence there is no question of claiming of insurance amount from opposite party. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the complaint is dismissed. Both parties are suffer their respective costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.19-1-2010 copy of lawyer notice.
A2. Postal receipt.
A3. Acknowledgement card
A4.Copy of the Insurance policy.
A5. 09-04-2007 Estimate issued by Manju Mahima Auto works, Kasaragod.
B1.23-02-10 reply notice.
PW1,Usman.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
