Complainant : Muhammedkutty, Pallath Kizhakkethil House,
Thirumittakkode, Pattambi (via).
(ByAdv.A.D.Benny, Thrissur)
Respondent : Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch
Office, 1st Floor, Sreenarayana Tourist Bldg., Opp.
Private Bus Stand, East Nada,Guruvayur.
(By Adv.Jerome Manjila, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member
The case of the complainant is that he has insured his Auto rickshaw No.KL-9 H 5080 with the respondents vide policy No.57070631046300003717. The said vehicle got damaged in the fire on 15/9/04. The complainant submitted the claim as per the policy. But it was repudiated. A lawyer notice was issued on 16/2/2006. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint filed.
2. Averments in the counter statement are that the respondent has issued a motor vehicle insurance policy No. 570706/31/04/6303717 for the vehicle KL9 H 5080 Auto rickshaw from 11/9/04 to 10/9/05. The vehicle produced for inspection is physically verified and photographs were taken at the time of preacceptance inspection on 10/9/04. Sine the accident occurred within days of insuring the vehicle an independent investigator was appointed to get correct details about the alleged incident. The investigator has reported that on comparing external features of the salvage with the photographs taken at the time of pre-insurance inspection of the vehicle, noticed crucial difference. The location and style of writing on the cargo box as seen on the pre-insurance photograph and what was seen on the salvage are different. The portion of the dash board, bearing the punched chasis No was missing. Therefore the salvage produced after the loss is not that of the vehicle produced for preacceptance insurance. Further the documents submitted in support of the claim issued by the additional registering of the Pattambi canceling the registration refers to a report of the AMVI, that the vehicle in question was dismantled on 15/9/2004 and is not in existence. It is not true as the investigator has physically verified the vehicle. Hence in the light of the significant difference noticed between the marks on the salvage and that on the pre-insurance photograph, defacing of the engine number and removal of the chasis number, it is realized that the vehicle as seen in the pre-insurance photograph and the salvage presented for inspection are different. The complainant had by fraudulently submitted the claim. So the respondent rejected the claim. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. Points for consideration are :
1) Is the complainant entitled to get the insurance claim?
2) Other reliefs and costs?
4. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 and P2 only.
5. The complainant’s case is that he had a valid motor vehicle insurance policy in respect of his Auto rickshaw No.KL9 H 5080. The vehicle was got damaged in the fire on 15/9/04, which makes him eligible to get the insurance claim amount. So he submitted the application for the insurance claim. But it was rejected. The complainant claims that he is entitled to get the claim amount. The counter arguments are that as soon as the respondent received the claim application they appointed an independent investigator to get the correct details about the alleged incident. The investigator has reported that the external features of the salvage and that of the vehicle in the photographs taken at the time of pre-insurance inspection are different. So the respondent has rejected the complainant’s claim after going through the records submitted by the complainant and also on the basis of the record submitted by the investigator.
6. The point to be decided is whether the vehicle got damaged due to fire, is the vehicle presented for pre-insurance inspection. The respondent has stated that in the inspection conducted by the investigator noticed the difference between the salvage and the vehicle presented for pre-insurance inspection. But no evidence is produced in this regard. Neither the photographs taken at the time of pre-insurance inspection nor the claim form are produced before the Forum. The report furnished by the investigator is also not seen produced. Hence the respondent failed to prove their allegation that it is not the insured vehicle that got damaged in the fire.
7. In the result the complaint is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant Rs.25,000/- with costs Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of September 2011.
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Repudiation lr.
Ext. P2 Copy of lawyer notice
Id/- Member
