M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The complainant having failed before the District Forum, in redressing his grievance, has come before us as appellant.
(2.) The complainant / appellant, being the owner of a car, bearing TN-49/X 0747, had insured the same with the opposite party, for the period 24.9.2003 to 23.9.2004, under the policy No.650701/31/03/6103954. During the currency of the policy, the car met with an accident, due to the fault committed by a cyclist, which was informed to the opposite party on 13.7.2004. The surveyor also inspected, and to him necessary documents, including bills for repair charges also filed. The complainant had incurred an expenses of RS.75852/-, and based upon the policy, a claim was lodged, which was not honoured, as if the complainant had violated the policy condition, in fixing the gas kit, in the vehicle, which is incorrect. Even before the date of purchase of the vehicle, the gas kit was there, and verifying the same alone, policy was issued, and therefore it is unfair on the part of the opposite party to repudiate the claim, on false grounds, thereby committing deficiency in service, causing mental agony also to the complainant, for which the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1lakh as compensation. Thus alleging deficiency, a consumer complaint was filed for the recovery of repair charges, as well as for compensation.
(3.) The opposite party admitting the policy, as well as period of coverage resisted the case, contending that even as admitted in the complaint, the vehicle was fitted with gas kit, not endorsed in the RC, thereby the complainant had violated the policy condition, and on that basis alone, claim was repudiated, cannot be termed as negligence, or deficiency, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;