M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant, who is running a hardware business, in his premises, were wheel alignment, and wheel balances, are done, had taken an insurance policy, from the opposite party, for a sum of RS.11,59,000/- on 13.8.2004, for the period 12.8.2004 to 11.8.2005. On 19.8.2004, a driver of Maruthi omni van, bearing Regn. No.TN 37E 8757, drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, entered into the complainants garage, dashed with wheel balancer alliance, and other parts, thereby caused damage to the extent of Rs.1,49,021/-, for which a criminal case was also registered against the driver, since in the said accident, two persons were also injured. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party, pursuant to the information, the surveyor also inspected the premises, valued the damage, thereby giving hope for reimbursement, but when the claim was made, unjustifiably and illegally, without any basis, repudiated as if policy condition was violated, which is incorrect. By the repudiation, the complainant was put to not only business loss, but also mental agony, in view of the unfair trade practice, and in this view, the complainant is entitled to the actual damages, alongwith compensation, under various heads, as claimed in paragraph 24 of the complaint.
(3.) The opposite party, admitting the policy, as well as the accident, which had taken place on 19.8.2004, as well the damage sustained to the machineries, owned and possessed by the complainant also to some extent, opposed the claim, interalia contending, that the accident had not taken place, as described in the complaint, thereby the complainant had suppressed the fact, altered material records, that the driver, who had caused the accident, had admitted, he being the employee of the complainant, drew the vehicle, caused the accident, which has no cover under the policy, that on the basis of the conditions available in the policy, which are binding upon the complainant also, justifiably, legally flavoured, repudiation was made, cannot be quoted as covered with deficiency, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying further averments also.;