Judgment:
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant / opposite party, who suffered an order before the District Forum, Namakkal in COP No.13/2006.
2. The complainant, knocked the doors of District Forum, Namakkal, by way of filing complaint, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,98,995/-, being the repair charges of the vehicle, which was insured with the opposite party, and for the recovery of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation, on the ground with among other grounds, that her vehicle, bearing Regn. No.KA 03 9297, was comprehensively insured with the opposite parties, for the period from 29.10.2002 to 28.10.2003, that the vehicle met with an accident on 22.11.2002, causing extensive damage to the vehicle, that for the accident caused, upon the complaint a police case was registered, charge sheeted, resulting conviction of the driver, that upon claim, though a surveyor had assessed the actual damage, when claim was lodged, the same was repudiated by the opposite parties on wrong grounds, and therefore they should be directed to not only to pay the repair charges, but also compensation.
3. In the written version, the appellants as opposite parties, having denied all the averments, which are against them, have stated that the vehicle, which involved in the accident was driven by one Saravanan @ Rajavelu, while he was under intoxication and that preparing false documents, a claim was made, which was repudiated, since the claim of the complainant was affected by Suppressio Veri and Suggestio Falsi, that the Forum has no jurisdiction, and that the claim is also bared by limitation, thereby praying for its dismissal.
4. The District Forum, in its elaborate reasoned order dt.10.1.2006, accepted the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-, negativing the compensation, thereby a direction came to be issued for the payment of the above said amount, with interest thereon at 9% p.a., from 01.04.2003 till the date of payment, which caused grievance to the complainant, giving cause of action also, to come to this State Commission by way of an appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the respondents, perused the written submission in addition to the documents filed by them.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for appellants, to set aside the order of the District Forum, is mainly on the ground that the complainant had suppressed many facts, especially who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident and thereby she had contravened the terms and conditions of the policy. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the driver who actually drove the vehicle, was one Saravanan @ Rajavelu, and investigation also revealed that he was drunken at the time of driving the vehicle and this being the position, the repudiation is perfectly justifiable. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for complainant, that when the accident had taken place, the actual person, who drove the vehicle was only Sethupathy, and in support of the above contention, our attentions were drawn to the public documents, including court proceedings.
7. We have given our anxious thought and deep consideration, and perused the materials also. We find no reason to differ from the view taken by the District Forum, in fact, elaborately and elegantly the District Forum has appreciated the evidence, arrived at a just conclusion, which requires only seal of confirmation, and not reversal in the hands of this commission.
8. The vehicle involved in this case, met with an accident on 22.11.2002, at about 9.00 a.m., within the police limit of Komangalam, Udamalaipet Pollachi Road. The next day, upon complaint, a case has been registered, wherein the driver name is shown as K.M. Sethupathi. The police also after investigation, admittedly as disclosed by the documents, prosecuted K.M.Sethupathi, who admitted the offence and paid fine, thereby culminating the criminal proceedings. We do not find any reason, to discard the court proceedings, which clinchingly proved the fact, that the vehicle was driven by K.M.Sethupathi alone, who was not drunken at that time. The District Forum, elaborately discussed the above points in paragraph 6 of its order, which deserves confirmation.
9. The learned counsel for appellants, in order to make out a case that the vehicle was not driven by K.M.Sethupathi, drew our attention to the reports submitted by investigating agency, appointed by the insurance company. They have collected certain documents, from the gas filling station, Mangalore, as well as from the station where the gas was unloaded at Madurai. In those documents, it seems that one Saravanan @ Rajavelu, was shown as driver. It seems, the said Saravanan @ Rajavelu also sustained injuries in the accident. When Saravanan was examined, the doctor has noticed that he had consumed alcohol, and necessary entries were made in the wound certificate also. Placing reliance upon those documents, which are not produced before us, it appears reports were prepared. Relying upon the reports prepared by the investigating agency, a submission was made that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was driven by Saravanan @ Rajavelu, who was drunken, and in this view, the repudiation is justifiable. This contention can be accepted, if it is made out, on the date of the accident, or at the time of the accident, he drew the Vehicle. But unfortunately it is not the case. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, when the vehicle was returning from Madurai, offloading the gas, and when the vehicle was proceeding from Madurai to Mangalore, the accident had taken place. Therefore, the entries found in the documents, which were collected by the investigating agency of the insurance company, certainly will not help. It is not mandatory, that the same person, who had driven the vehicle from Ernakulam to Madurai alone should drove the vehicle, on its return journey. In the return journey, as proved by the police records, K.M. Sethupathi, alone had driven the vehicle, and therefore it is impossible to say, that the complainant had violated the insurance policy, and in this view, the repudiation is correct. There is no dispute, regarding the quantum arrived by the District Forum, which is based upon the survey report also. The complainant is not aggrieved by the dismissal of the rest of the claim. There is no dispute regarding the quantum of Rs.1,50,000/-. No other points urged before us. The District Forum, considering all these facts and circumstances of the case in detail and we would say, elaborately and acceptably, had arrived at an unquestionable decision, with all legal flavour, which deserves acceptance in our hands.
10. In the result, the appeal fails, and the same is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Namakkal, in COP.N.13/2005 dt.10.1.2006. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we order no cost in this appeal.