By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

 

            The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows. The autorickshaw No.KL-8/AD-7560 owned by the complainant was insured with the respondent vide policy No.7755/2005. It had full cover insurance coverage from 17.2.05 to 16.2.2006. The said vehicle met with an accident and occurred some damages to the vehicle. The police registered crime also. The accident was intimated to the respondents and the vehicle was repaired at Maxim Mobiles A DV – Maxim Trades (P) Ltd, Thrissur. A surveyor from the first respondent has inspected the vehicle at the workshop and prepared an estimate. The complainant had paid Rs.10,864/- as repairing charges. After that the bill and other documents were submitted to second respondent. But they prepared to pay Rs.8931/- and bill and the survey report were forwarded to the first respondent. But no amount was paid by stating the reason that the driver of the vehicle had no badge at the time of accident. This act of the respondents is deficiency in service and this complaint is filed.

            2. The averments in the version are as follows: The respondents admit the policy for the vehicle and the accident occurred in 8.5.05. The mere existence of a valid policy does not ipso facto attach any liability with the respondent. The complainant has violated terms and conditions of the policy. The driver who was allegedly driving the vehicle was not having valid badge at the time of the alleged accident. According to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 a person who is not holding a badge is not entitled to drive a transport vehicle. The above said vehicle being a Goods Carrying Commercial vehicle the said driver was not entitled to drive the same at the time of the alleged accident. The respondents requested the complainant to produce the badge of the said driver. But it was not produced. So the complainant is not entitled to get any amount. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

 

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 series to P4 and Exts. R1 to R7.

 

            5. Points-1 & 2: The case of the complainant is that she had insured the three wheeler goods carrying autorickshaw with the respondents and the vehicle met with accident within the insurance period. The complainant had spent Rs.10,964/- towards the repairing charges. But the respondents rejected the claim stating that the driver who was driven the vehicle at the time of the accident had no valid badge. But the driver had valid licence. So the complainant claims that she is entitled to get the amount spent for repairing the vehicle. The contention of the respondents is that the claim was rejected mainly because the driver who was driven the vehicle had no badge. 

 

            6. There is no dispute regarding the validity of the insurance cover. The dispute is only with regard to the badge of the driver. Ext. R4 and R5 are the copy of policy issued by the respondents and Ext. R7 is the policy condition. It does not contain a condition requiring badge. There is stipulation regarding licence. Since there is no specific condition about this the respondents cannot compel the necessity of badge. The Counsel for the complainant produced a reported decision of our own High Court that Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability merely because the driver who was duly licensed did not have a badge. So the position is very clear and the respondents company is liable to pay the repairing charges.

 

            7. According to the complainant, she has paid Rs.10,964/- as repairing chargtes and produced Ext. P1 invoice. But Ext. R1 the report of surveyor shows that the approximate net loss assessed is Rs.7815.34. There is nothing to discredit the report and surveyor being independent person it is to be considered. So according to us complainant is entitled to get the loss assessed by surveyor.

 

            8. The non-settlement of a genuine claim shows deficiency in service of respondents and they are liable to pay compensation also.

 

            9. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the loss stated in Ext. R1 survey report and Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant within one month.