Decided on April 20,2010

Benny Varghese Respondents


- (1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order dated 31st January 2009 of the CDRF, Idukki in CC No.127/08. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in dishonoring the Insurance claim with respect to the insured vehicle bearing Registration No. KL -06 -B 1495. The opposite party/Insurance Company entered appearance and contended that there was violation of the policy conditions as the complainant had only possessed learners driving license to drive the car and that the complainant failed to follow the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Thus, the opposite party/Insurance Company justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim.
(2.) BEFORE the forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite party DWs 1 and 2 were examined and R1 to R3 documents were produced. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.80,542/ - to the complainant as the insurance claim amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the complaint and cost of Rs.2000/ -. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party/Insurance Company.
(3.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on R1 copy of the first information statement given to the Police with respect to the accident. It is further submitted that R1 first information statement was given by the wife of the respondent/complainant and argued for the position that there was violation of the policy condition regarding possession of driving licence. It is submitted that the evidence on record would show that the respondent/complainant was not having a valid driving license and he was holding only a learners licence. But, he failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The points that arise for consideration are: - 1. Whether the appellant/opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Limited can be justified in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the respondent/complainant? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in CC.127/08?;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.