SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT) The case of the complainant is that he is the owner and insured of motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-04/K-7969. His vehicle met with an accident. There after he preferred claim before the opposite party. But the opposite party repudiated the claim falsely. Hence he preferred complaint. 2. Opposite party filed version stating that the person who driven the vehicle at the time of accident is one Shibu and he has no driving license at the time of accident. There are 3 persons were traveling in the vehicle at the time of accident. Further the person arrayed as driver in the police charge has consumed alcohol at the time of accident. 3. Considering the rival contentions of both parties, this Forum framed following issues for the disposal of this case. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 4. Complaint produced 11 documents and examined the complainant. Opposite party produced 9documents and examined one witness. 5. The accident and coverage of the policy is not disputed. The dispute is with regard to the reasons for repudiation is valid or not. First reason stated by the opposite party is that the vehicle was driven by one Shibu and not Renjith. Expect the report of the investigator of the insurance company there is no other evidence in this case to this point. There is no legal support for accepting the report of a private investigator. He was not an eye witness to the accident. His report is only hearsay. The insurance company has not examined an eye witness to substantiate the case of the opposite party. Further the person charge sheeted by the police is also sustained in the same accident. So he is not a planted driver. In the above circumstances, there is no force to the contention of opposite party. Second contention of the opposite party is that there are three persons traveling in the vehicle. This is not a valid ground for repudiating the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Insurance is a contract between two parties and the determination of the claim can be considered only as per the terms and conditions of policy. Overloading is not a condition for the repudiation of the claim as per the policy conditions produced in this case. The third contention of the opposite party is that driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was in alcoholic. As per the terms and conditions of the policy if the driver of vehicle is under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of accident and this would have been with consent of the insured. But there is no evidence available in this case that the driver was under the influence of intoxicating liquor with the consent and knowledge of the insured. Smell of alcohol cannot be equated with influence of alcohol. Hence this contention of the insurance company is also not sustainable. 6. The next question is that what the amount to be awarded in this case. The Surveyor has assessed the value of the vehicle on the basis of market value. This is totally false. There is no provision for assessing value of the vehicle on the basis of market value. IDV of the vehicle shown in the policy is Rs.49,500/-. Year of manufacturing shown in the policy is 2002. Date of accident was on 21.3.2003. As per the terms and conditions of the policy 10% depreciation can be considered. Hence the value of the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the policy on the date of accident is 44,550/-. The Surveyor has recommended salvage loss basis. He was assessed the wreck value as Rs.16,500/-. As per clause 3a) of the conditions of the policy, insurance company is liable to pay Rs.28,000/-. The complainant can retain the wreck. In the result, petition allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.28,000/- with 12% interest from 16.4.2003 the date of claim. Opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.4400/- as cost of the proceedings. As per the guidelines of the insurance company they are paying Rs.4400/- as fees to their advocate. Complainant is also entitled to get this amount cost of the proceedings. Hence opposite party is directed to pay Rs.28,000/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand only) with 12% interest and cost of Rs.4400/-(Rupees four thousand and four hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Complaint allowed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008. Sd/- SRI. JIMMI KORAH: Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SMT.N. SHAJITHA BEEVI: Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - B.Arun (Witness) Ext.A1 - Photo copy of the policy Ext.A2 - Certificate of Registration (Photo copy) Ext.A3 - First Information Report (Photo copy) Ext.A4 - Mahazor (Photo copy) Ext.A5 - Deposition of Renjithlal (Photo copy) Ext.A6 - Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate (Photo copy) Ext.A7 - Report of inspector of a motor vehicle involved in Accident (Photo copy) Ext.A8 - “ “ Ext.A9 - Postmortem Certificate dated 23.3.01(Photo copy) Ext.A10 - Postmortem Certificate dated 22.3.03 (Photo copy) Ext.A11 - Letter dated 28.11.2003 Evidence of the opposite party:- RW1 - K.P.Asokan (Witness) Ext.B1 - Policy Ext.B2 - Terms and conditions of the policy Ext.B3 - Motor Claim Form Ext.B4 - :Letter dated 8.10.2003 Ext.B5 - First Information Report (Photo copy) Ext.B6 - Accident Register-cum- Wound Certificate (Photo copy Ext.B7 - Letter dated 28.11.2003 Ext.B8 - Motor Final Survey Report Ext.B9 - Insurance Claims investigation/consultancy-service Matters // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F. Typed by:- Pr/- Compared by:- | 
