Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/311

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

-PRASANNAKUMARI - Opp.Party(s)

SREEVARAHAM.G.SATHEESH

27 Apr 2012

ORDER

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram
 
First Appeal No. A/12/311
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/10/2011 in Case No. CC/11/195 of District Ernakulam)
 
1. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
2ND FLOOR,VISHNU BUILDING,K.P.VALLON ROAD,KADAVANTHRA
ERNAKULAM
KERALA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. -PRASANNAKUMARI
24/740,SUNIL VIHAR,MULAVELICKAL ROAD,THEVARA
ERNAKULAM
KERALA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

       KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

APPEAL  NO.311/2012

 

JUDGMENT DATED : 27.04.2012

 

PRESENT:

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU                       :  PRESIDENT

 

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                     : MEMBER

 

 

M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

2nd floor, Vishnu Building, K.P.Vallon Road,     : APPELLANT

Kadavantra, Kochi.

 

(By Adv:Sri. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

 

          Vs.

Prasanna Kumari,

24/740, Sunil vihar,

Mulavelickal road, Konthuruthy.P.O,                  : RESPONDENT

Thevara, Kochi-682 013.

 

    

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

 

 

The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.195/11 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The opposite parties have been directed to pay the claim as per norms.

 

2.      The case of the complainant is that his vehicle insured with the opposite parties met with an accident on 12.11.2010 and that vehicle was totally damaged and is beyond repairs.  The claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was sold to one Abdul Riza Sulaiman on 8.11.2008.  It is the contention of the complainant that although an agreement was executed the sale did not take place and that the vehicle has remained in the name and possession of the complainant.  He claimed a sum of Rs.1,78,500/-.

 

3.      Opposite party have filed version contending that the complainant does not have any insurable interest as the vehicle has been sold.

 

4.      Evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to A3.

 

5.      The Forum has noted that the RC, ie Ext.A1 is in the name of the complainant, so also Ext.A2 is the policy of insurance for the period from 29.05.2010 to 25.05.2011.  No evidence has been adduced by the opposite parties to establish the contention that the vehicle has been sold.  In the circumstances we find that no other conclusion other than the one taken by the Forum below is possible.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal.  The appeal is dismissed in-limine.

 

Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.

 

 

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

 

VL.

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.