JUDGMENT

B. Sudheendra Kumar, President.—This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties challenging the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short ‘the District Commission’) in C.C.No.109/2014.

2. The District Commission directed the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.3,26,628/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Eight only) to the complainant being the repair charge already paid by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party and to pay Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs.

3. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 65 A 3999, which met with an accident on 02.06.2013 at Kottakkal. The accident occurred when the above said vehicle collided with another vehicle bearing registration No.KL 52B 7008. Both the vehicles sustained damage in the above accident. The complainant entrusted the car for the repair works with the 2nd opposite party and accordingly, the car was repaired. The complainant had to pay Rs.3,26,628/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Eight only) as repairing charges. The complainant submitted a claim before the opposite party, which was repudiated by the opposite party stating that the complainant had consumed alcohol while driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4. The opposite parties filed version denying the averments in the complaint. The opposite parties admitted the coverage of insurance in respect of the vehicle of the complainant. However, the 1st opposite party submitted that the driver of the vehicle was in a drunken stage at the time of the accident and hence the Kottakkal Police registered FIR in this regard. After completing the investigation, the police filed the final report against the driver of the vehicle for offences including the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the complainant himself was driving the vehicle after consuming alcohol, there was clear violation of the policy conditions and consequently, the insurance company was not liable to compensate the complainant. Accordingly, the insurance company denied the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company in this regard.

5. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked for the complainant. Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for the opposite parties.

6. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission passed the order impugned directing the 1st opposite party to pay the amount as mentioned above.

7. During the appellate stage, Exhibit A9 was marked. Exhibit A9 is the judgement of the Magistrate Court concerned disposing of S.T.No.2759/2013 whereby the accused therein, who is the complainant herein, was acquitted by the Court after the trial.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

9. It is not disputed that the complainant was driving the vehicle involved in this case at the time of accident. It is also not disputed that the vehicle of the complainant was having insurance coverage on the date of accident. The accident was on 02.06.2013. It is further admitted that the complainant had submitted the claim before the insurance company in connection with the damage sustained to the vehicle of the complainant. It is also not disputed that the 1st opposite party/insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant was driving the vehicle after consuming liquor at the time of accident.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since Exhibits B2 FIR and Exhibit B1 final report were produced by the appellant before the District Commission, the District Commission ought to have found that the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was justified as the complainant