By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, MEMBER

1.   The complaint in short is as follows:-

               The complainant is the registered owner of Vehicle No. KL-65-D-9771, 2014 modelTOYOTAETIOS VD Car and the vehicle stands insured with 1^st opposite party vide Policy No. 1010833117P105987079 covered from 28/07/2017 to 27/07/2018.   On 23/03/2018 while the complainant along with his family were travelling in the car driven by Mr.Thajudheen  S/o  Hamza,  the son -in-law  of the complainant met withan accident  and vehicle  sustained damages.  The complainant on the same day informed the opposite party andthe surveyor of the opposite party inspected the vehicle.  The complainant   submitted Insurance Policy, R.C Book, Police report andthe driving licence of Thajudheen before the 2^nd opposite party.    The complainant informed about the accident before the Vengara Police Station on the same day.  The vehicle was takento the authorised Dealer andservice centreAMANA TOYOTA VPK MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, Moochikkal, Meenadathur -PO, Tirur, Malappuram on the same day.  The people of the work shop assessed the cost of repair work as Rs. 2,44,552/-(Rupees Two lakh Forty four thousand five hundred and fifty two only) and prepared an estimate to that effect.  Thereafter opposite party insisted  for some other details  and accordingly the complainant approached the  Police station  and the Vengara police issued  a certificate dated 15/05/2018 to produce  before the Insurance company and  the same was  produced before the Insurance company also.  Later from the service centre of the vehicle called the complainant demanding toadvance 70,000/-(Rupees Seventy thousand only) rupees to commence the repair work of the vehicle.  The complainant paid Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only)to the service centre on 16/05/2018.   On 05/06/2018 complainant received a notice from the 2^nd opposite party contenting that at the time of accident the vehicle was not driven by a person dulylicensed and they are not able to allow the insurance claim.  Thereafter thecomplainant approached the opposite party for the insurance claim butthe claim stands dishonoured. The complainant paid Rs. 2,57,140/-(Rupees Two lakh fifty seven thousand one hundred and forty only) to the service centre towardsthe service cost on 04/07/2018.    The act of the oppositeparty amounts deficiencyinservice and they are bound to paythe cost of repair work to the complainant. So the complainant  pray for the  repair cost of Rs. 2,57,140/-(Rupees Two lakh fifty seven thousand one hundred and forty only), compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) for the mental agony suffered by the complainant  and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only)as  cost  and interest. 

2.          On admission of the complaint issued notice to the opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed version in detail.  The opposite parties deniedthe entire allegations and averments in the complaint. Thecontention of the opposite parties is that the complainant himself was the owner cum driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and he was not having a valid license at the time of accident.   Since the complainant nothaving valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, they are not liable to pay the insurance coverage.    The opposite parties allege naked violation of the policy conditions.  The case of the opposite parties is that  the claim form  was filled up  by the complainant  in his own hand writing  and has admitted  in column No.3  of the claim form  that the complainant himself was  the owner cum driver  of the vehicle  at the time of accident.

3.          The opposite parties contended that the complainant submitted the claim form and connected papers along with copy of driving licences and copy of registration certificate before the 2^nd opposite party on 29/03/2018.  On verification of the claim form it was found that the complainant possessed novalid and effective driving license to drive motor vehicle at the relevant time.  After verification of Driving license 2^nd opposite party sent a  letter dated  05/06/2018 to the complainant   contending that the  claim is not payable  as per  the terms and conditions of the policy since  at the time of accident  the vehicle was  driven by a person  who is not having valid license.   The averment in the complaint that the vehicle was driven by one Thajudheen S/o Hamza at the time of accident is not correct butfalse tomislead  the Commission.  The opposite parties submitted that immediately on receipt of the report of the accident from the complainant the opposite party  deputed  one Mr.Vasu .P, one of the licensed Insurance Surveyor, Valuer &  Loss Assessor for assessing the  actual loss suffered by the complainant. According to opposite party, surveyor inspected the vehicle, conducted survey,and verified the damaged parts and a report were prepared on 28/04/2018.  The loss assessed by the said surveyor was for Rs. 2, 28,346/- (Rupees Two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred and forty six only).  The insurance surveyor also verified the Driving licence of the complainant and reported that the complainant had no valid and effective Driving licenses at the time of accident.  The opposite party verified the Driving licence of thecomplainant  and it was found that  the validity of driving license of the complainant  expired on 27/01/2018 itself and therefore the opposite parties were  not in  a position to  settle the claim due to  violation of the Policy conditions on the part of the complainant.  The opposite parties disputes the avermentof certificate issued by Vengara, Police dated 15/05/2018 to the complainant showing that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was one Thajudheen.  Since the complainant had produced a certificate dated 17/4/2018 issued from the very same Police station beforethis opposite party and it shows that complainanthimself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.    The opposite parties allegethat thecomplainant had influenced the police and might have managed to get a new certificate. 

4.         The opposite parties denied the allegations that they are wilfully dishonouring the claim.  Opposite parties submitted that they were prepared to settle the claim at the earliest opportunity and that is why the surveyor was deputed for assessing the actual loss suffered by the complainant.   The opposite parties  also contended that  the complainant   himself  revealed the fact that he was  driving the vehicle at the time of accident and has produced  his expired driving license for verification     and so  there was no other way  before the opposite party  but to deny the claim  since  the complainant was  a naked violator of the policy conditions.  The violation of the policy condition   is the root cause for the denial of the claim. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant knocking the door of this Commission without clean hands.So complaint may be dismissed withcompensatory cost of theopposite parties. 

5.        The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits and documents in lieu of evidence.   The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext.A1 to A10.  Ext. A1 is a copy of the Insurance policy dated 28/07/2017.   Ext. A2 is a copy of drivinglicense issued on 20/4/2012.  Ext. A3   is a copy of Certificate issued by Vengara Police dated 15/05/2018.  Ext. A4 is a copy of estimate dated 27/03/2018.  Ext. A5 is a bill issued by Amana Toyota VPKMotors Privatelimited dated 29/06/2018.  Ext. A6   is a bill issued by Amana Toyota VPK Motors Private Limited dated 30/06/2018. Ext.A7 is a bill issued by Amana Toyota VPKMotorsPrivate Limited dated 2/07/2018. Ext.A8 Letter of repudiation   issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 5/6/2018.  Ext. A9 is a cash voucher dated 16/05/2018.   Ext. A10 is a cash voucher dated 4/07/2018.Documents produced by the opposite parties marked as a Ext. B1 toB5. Ext. B1 is a copy of an Insurance Policy No.1010833117P105987079 dated 25/07/2017.  Ext.B2 is claim form dated 29/03/2018.  Ext. B3 is a certificate issued by the SI of Police Vengara dated 17/04/2018.  Ext. B4 is MotorSurvey Report dated 28/04/2018.  Ext. B5 is copy of drivinglicense ofcomplainant dated 2/2/1998. 

6.   Heard both sides perusedthe affidavits and the Notes of arguments.   Now the following points stood for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? 
2. Relief and cost?

7.Point No.1&2

         The grievance of the complainant is that  despiteof compliance of the all the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the opposite party repudiated the insurance claim. The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No. KL-65-D 9771 TOYOTA ETIOS VD, 2014 model car, the vehicle stands insured with the opposite parties by policy No.1010833117P105987079covered from 28/07/2017 to 27/07/2018.  His vehicle met with accident on 23/03/2018 during the period of insurance coverage.  Complainant case is that his Son-in law Mr.Thajudheen S/o Hamza was driving the vehicle at the material point of time and he was holding valid driving license also.   Complainant submittedthat, he produced all the relevant documents of the vehicle in time before the opposite parties, but the opposite parties denied the insurance. 

8.       The contention of the opposite parties isthat at the relevant time the complainant was driving the vehicle and he was not having valid driving license.  Opposite parties submitted that   the claim form prepared andsubmitted was thecomplainant and he has produced his driving license before the 2^nd opposite party on 29/03/2018.  The opposite party specifically contented that the claim form was prepared by the complainant in his own hand writing and in column No.3 of the claim form that thecomplainant has stated that himself was the owner cum driver at the time of accident.   The opposite parties contentedthat immediately on receipt of report of the accident from the complainant, the opposite party deputed Mr.Vasu .P, the surveyor and after conducting survey on 31/03/2018 he filed report also.  He has reportedthat he verified the driving License of the complainant and that the complainant had no valid and effective driving License at the time of accident.    According to opposite parties the license of the complainant stands expired on 27/01/2018 itself and so they were not in a position to settle the claim due to the violation of the policy conditions.

9.          It can be seen from the contentions of the parties the relevant issue is that whether the driver was having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant produced a documents issued by the Vengara Police on 15/05/2018, Ext. A3.Ext. A3 state that on 27/03/2018 at about 23 hours while his vehicle bearing registration No.KL-65-D-9771with Engine No. IND1371497, ChasisNo.MBJB49BT1000836170614 Etios Car driven by his son-in-law Mr.Thajudheen S/o of Hamza ,hit onan  Industrial shop at Edakkattuparamba. The certificate further states that  enquiries were made about the same  and found the matter as true .  It is also certified that vehicle found damaged due to the accident and none of themare injured in the accident.  It is also certified that it is issued to the complainant only for submitting insurance claim for the vehicle.  But on the other side opposite party produced  another certificate dated 17/4/2018issued by the same Police Officer. The certificate shows that on the date of accident the complainant was driving the vehicle. It can be seen from the affidavit of the complainant he is not disputing the contentionof Ext. B2 document. The specific case of the opposite parties is that, the Ext. B2 is written by the complainant himself and there in the column No.3, it is explained thatthe driver at the time of accident was none other than the complainant.  Ext. A3 and Ext. B3   are two certificates issued by the same Police Officer regarding the accident. But Ext. B3 is executed on 17/04/2018 and Ext. A3 is executed on 15/05/2018.   At the time of evidence and hearing this aspect was brought to the considerationof parties but they did not take any steps to clarify the correctness of the contention of the certificates.   The complainant   is bound to establish hiscase beyond all reasonable doubts, which he has not done.  Ext. B2 claimform and Ext.B3 issued by the Police Sub Inspector reveals that at the time of accident, the complainant himself was driving the vehicle.Comparing documents Ext. A3 and Ext. B3, we gives more   appreciation to the documents Ext.B3 since it is executed prior to Ext. A3 document. Complainant has not disputed the contentionof Ext. B3.  In the above circumstances itis proper to arrive a conclusion that at the time of accident none other than the complainant was driving the vehicle.    The complainant have no case that he was holding avalid and effective driving license at the time of accident.  It can be seen from the contention of the opposite parties absenceof effectiveand validlicence amount to violation of policy conditions.Opposite parties submitted that complainant being violated the policy conditions, he is not entitled forthe repaircharges of the vehicle.  The Commission also feels that thecomplainant approached this commission not with true facts.    Hence Commission finds that the complainant is   not entitled for the  claim  as prayed in the  complaint.

10. In the above facts and circumstances complaintis dismissed.

Dated this 5^thday of May,  2021.