KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO.209/12

JUDGMENT  DATED: 07.12.2012

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI               : PRESIDENT

The Manager,

M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Kannakeri Estate, 3^rd floor, Marine Drive,         : APPELLANT

Shanmugham Road, Kochi-682 031.

(By Adv: Sri.Prasannakumaran Nair)

          Vs.

K.M. Muhammed, S/o Meerakutty,

Kurumattukudy House,

Venduvazhi, Karukadom.P.O,                            : RESPONDENT

Kothamangalam-686 691.

(By Adv:Sri.Tom Joseph)

                                 JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.613/09 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, 1^st day of August 2011.

2.      The case of the respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this.  PW1 is the owner of Swaraj Masda tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-14-2987. This vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company for the period from April 23, 2008 to April 22, 2009.  On March 24, 2009 the vehicle dashed against an 11 KV electric post on the side of the road and the compound wall of the property owned by one Mr.Soman.  Electric Post and the compound wall were damaged.   He has to remit Rs.9,874/- to KSEB on March 30, 2009 and Rs.15,233.80 for reconstructing the damage of compound wall.  Though, a claim was lodged before the appellant/company they refused.  Therefore the complainant has come up with the complaint.

3.      The appellant/opposite party is ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd represented by its Manager.  The appellant in his version before the Forum contended thus.  It is true that the lorry of PW1 was insured with the appellant/company.  It is also correct that the said lorry met with an accident as alleged in the complaint.  But the PW1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  He did not intimate about the accident to the appellant/company.  Therefore the complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on his side.  On the side of the appellant/opposite party Ext.B1 was marked.

5.      The district forum on an appreciation of the evidence allowed the complaint in part.  Forum has directed appellant/opposite party pay to the complainant Rs.9,874/- being the amount given by the complainant to KSEB.  The claim of PW1 to refund the amount spent by him for reconstructing the damaged compound wall is rejected.  The opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

6.      The only point raised in the appeal is that the claim pertains to the 3^rd  party property damage and that only the owners of property can cause their before the MACT and that consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.  We find no merit in the above contention.  It is true that the claim relate to a 3^rd party claim. But the complainant has paid the amount to KSEB.  Therefore he cannot now approached MACT claiming the amount as only 3^rd party can approach the MACT.  Therefore we are of the view that the complaint is maintainable.

7.      The documents produced by PW1 show that he has paid Rs.9874/- to the KSEB towards the damages caused to the electric post.  Therefore the appellant/opposite party is bound to indemnify PW1 to that extent.

In the light of our above findings we find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.2000/-.

JUSTICE  P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT

VL.