Karnataka

Mysore

CC/08/294

Chandrashekara Swamy Vinayakanagara Mysore - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Signatory ICICI Lombard General General InsuranceCo;Ltd Mysore and Others - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
No.845, 10th Main, New Kantharaj Urs Road, G.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore - 570 009
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/294

Chandrashekara Swamy Vinayakanagara Mysore
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Authorised Signatory ICICI Lombard General General InsuranceCo;Ltd Mysore and Others
Authorized Signatory
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Sri D.Krishnappa2. Sri. Shivakumar.J.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

The complainant has come up with this complaint against the first and second opposite parties claiming damages for damages caused to his vehicle, which is insured with the first and second opposite parties when his claim came to be repudiated by first and second opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties objected this complaint on the ground that the complainant was not the R.C. owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. Then the earlier owner of the vehicle has been impleaded in this complaint as third opposite party who admitted to have sold the vehicle in favour of the complainant but R.C. was standing in his name as on the date of the accident and further submitted that he has no objection for first and second opposite parties to pay damages to the complainant on account of the accident. The counsel appearing for the third opposite party also submitted the same to this Forum. But, the counsel representing the first and second opposite parties contended that the third opposite party was being the R.C. owner and R.C. since has not been transferred in the name of the complainan, the complainant is not entitled for any damages and further submitted if third opposite party himself makes a claim in the claim form with necessary documents thus the first and second opposite parties would process and take decision as per law. For which, the third opposite party who is present and his advocate agreed for this third opposite party filing a claim petition before first and second opposite parties and in the event of first and second opposite parties sanctioning damages to the insured vehicle in his name he will pass on the benefit to the complainant and thereby they submitted for disposal of this complaint. With this we pass the following order:- ORDER The third opposite party shall file a claim form before the first and second opposite parties with necessary particulars and documents making a claim for awarding damages and that first and second opposite parties without any delay shall process the claim and take decision as per law and that the third opposite party shall in the event of getting damages from first and second opposite parties shall pass on to the complainant as agreed upon. With this, the complaint is disposed off accordingly.




......................Sri D.Krishnappa
......................Sri. Shivakumar.J.