M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.86,864/- as a loss of damage suffered by the complainant, to pay Rs.10,000/- as a compensation of the loss and injury suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the opposite party and to pay the cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.03.07.2007 in C.C.264/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.04.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and respondent in person and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: The opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant / respondent being the owner of the Ambassador Car No.TN-57-E-5565, insured with the opposite party on 28.03.2005, having validity upto 27.3.2006.
(3.) The complainant with his family members traveled in the car, driven by Saravanan, son of the complainant, who got a valid driving license on 23.11.2005. When the vehicle was crossing a river, at about 7.45 p.m., all of a sudden, there was heavy surge of water flow, unexpectedly and on seeing the same, the vehicle was stopped, but unfortunately the vehicle was overturned, washing the passengers also, then at some distance, the vehicle entangled in a tree, where from villagers have rescued the travelers. Thus, the vehicle met with an accident due to natural calamities, which was reported to the opposite party. The opposite party appointed a Surveyor, inspected the vehicle and the car was repaired at SGJ Motors Ltd., spending a sum of Rs.86,864/-. On the basis of the policy, when a claim was made, it was repudiated, as if, driver was not possessing LMV Badge, since the vehicle was a tourist taxi. The incident had happened accidentally, unexpectedly due to natural cause, which has nothing to do with the driving and therefore, the repudiation should be construed, as negligent and deficiency in service, which was not rectified, despite request, causing mental agony. Thus, a case was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs.96,864/- as a whole.;