DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 31^st day of December, 2009.

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.96/2006

Premdeep Haridas,

S/o.Haridas,

Prathyusha,

Sreekrishnapuram, Palakkad. - Complainant

(Adv. U.Suresh and K.Dhananjayan)

Vs

1. K. Muraleedharan,

Administrative Officer,

The National Insurance Co Ltd,

East Fort Complex, Fort Maidan,

Palakkad.

(Adv. A R V Sankar)

2. The General Manager,

National Insurance Co Ltd,

Regd Office, 3. Middleton Street,

Post Box No.9229, Kolkata,

Pin – 700071. - Opposite parties

(Adv. A R V Sankar)

O R D E R

By Smt.H.Seena, President

Complainant is the R C owner of KL9/J 0393 Eicher G/V Truck. He was using the vehicle for his livelihood. Vehicle met with an accident on 17/09/2004 at 3.30 A M at Palladam. At the time of accident the vehicle was insured with 2^nd opposite party. Policy covers full cover protection and includes 3^rd party risk and own damages. The fact was informed to Palladam Police Station and crime was registered. The accident was informed to the 1^st opposite party insurance company. Surveyor after examining the vehicle has submitted report noting defects. Totally

complainant has spent Rs.1,25,000/- to repair the truck and to make it reusable. After obtaining the surveyor's report complainant consulted the 1^st opposite party

to reimburse his claim. But the 1^st opposite party had not even cared to give him a

claim form. According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency of service. Complainant claims an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- being the repair charges together with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

2. Opposite parties filed version. According to the opposite parties, complaint is defective as company is not a party in the petition. Further no claim intimation is given to the opposite parties and the alleged accident is also not reported. When a claim is reported, it is the option of the opposite party to repair the vehicle at the risks of the company or permit the insured to repair it through authorised workshop. In this case nothing has been taken place. Complainant has not approached the National Insurance Company for any relief. Further as the vehicle was hypothecated to Canara Bank, Sulthanpet, Palakkad, it is the Bank who is entitled to make a claim. Again the petitioner has reported a claim for the same vehicle on 01/05/2006. Opposite party has settled the claim and amount was paid to the financier Canara Bank, Palakkad. According to the opposite party, complainant has not mentioned about the present claim any where in the earlier claim form and the intention of the complainant is to grab money through illegal source from the same Insurance Company. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The matter was remitted back to the forum by the Hon'ble State Commission. As per the order, forum is directed to permit the parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the matter.

4. Opposite parties filed an IA for cross examination of the complainant. Application was allowed. Even though sufficient opportunity was given complainant was not made available for cross examination.

5. Issues for consideration;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

6. Issues 1 & 2:

Specific case of the complainant is that the accident occurred during the period of policy and when the complainant approached 1^st opposite party, 1^st opposite party did not issue the claim form for claiming the insurance amount.

7. 1^st opposite party has argued in the additional argument notes filed after remitting of the case, that no claim intimation was given to the company by the complainant before filing the complaint. Further it was contented by opposite party that the complainant has not produced the survey report as well as the translated copy of the FIR.

8. Heard both parties and perused relevant documents on record. It is true that the complainant has not produced the translated copy of FIR and survey report. But opposite parties has not raised objection regarding this aspect earlier. As per the order of the Hon'ble State Commission, the forum has permitted the parties to adduce evidence if any. 1^st opposite party has filed an interim application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant which was allowed. Even though sufficient opportunity was given, complainant was not made available for cross examination in order to ascertain true facts. In these circumstances, the evidence tendered by the complainant by way of affidavit cannot be considered at all.

9. Moreover the same company has settled a claim arising out of an accident happened on 01/05/06 with respect to the same vehicle. In the claim form submitted by the complainant to the company, nothing has been mentioned about the accident which took place on 17/09/04 even though there was a specific column for answering that point.

10. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove a case in his favour.

11. In the result, complaint dismissed.

12. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of December, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member