M.P.Ahammed kutty V/S National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/423

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.P.Ahammed kutty - Opp.Party(s)

Rajan.P.Kaliyath

25 Oct 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/08/423

(Arisen out of Order Dated 22/07/2008 in Case No. CC74/06 of District Malappuram)

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office, Parco Towers, P.K.Road,Kozhikkode

BEFORE:
	SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR PRESIDING MEMBER

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.423/08

JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER

1. National Insurance Company Ltd,

Divisional Office, Parco Towers,

PB.No.207, P.K.Taj Road, Kozhikode.

2. The Manager, -- APPELLANTS

National Insurance Co.Ltd,

Manjeri.

(By Adv.Rajan P Kaliyath)

Vs.

M.P.Ahemmedkutty,

S/0 Unnimammed, Mangattuparamil house,

Omanur Post, Cheruvayoor, -- RESPONDENT

Malappuram District.

JUDGMENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMEBR

The order dated 22.7.08 in CC.74/06 of CDRF, Malappuram is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under instructions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2. The case of the complainant before the forum below was that he had purchased a bus bearing Registration No.KL 10P-7177 for earning his livelihood and that the vehicle was having a package policy, which expired on 15.11.06. His grievance is that though he had approached the second opposite party to renew the policy, the second opposite party refused to do the same and directed him to approach the first opposite party. It is the further case of the complainant that though he had approached the first opposite party also, the policy was refused and the opposite parties behaved in a rude manner and that he had to take a new policy by which act he lost the no claim bonus amounting to Rs.7,500/-. The complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to refund Rs.7,500/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

3. Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties submitted that there was no total refusal to renew the policy and that only the own damage cover was refused on the ground that the complainant did not produce the previous policy and submitting that the renewal of own damage cover is a continuation of the previous contract and as the complainant had taken the policy from Bangalore, the own damage cover could be issued only on production of the earlier policy. Contending that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. The evidence consisted of the documents only which are marked as Exts.A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant and B1 on the side of the opposite parties.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Adv.C.S.Rajmohan, the Amicuscuriea for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the forum was incorrect in holding that there was deficiency on the side of the opposite parties in as much as the comprehensive policy was not issued on the request of the complainant. It is his very case that the own damage policy could be issued only after inspecting the vehicle and verifying the documents. It is submitted by him that the complainant has stated before the opposite parties that the vehicle was having a package policy which was issued by the Bangalore Office and when the complainant was asked to produce the previous policy, it was not done and in such a circumstance the opposite parties were not able to issue the own damage cover. The learned counsel further submitted that if the complainant had acted in accordance with the request of the opposite parties, the policy could have been renewed giving the complainant the no claim bonus that was eligible to him. Thus, he advanced the contention that the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, the learned amicuscuriea supported the findings and conclusions of the forum below and inviting our attention to Ext.A1, he advanced the contention that the opposite party had offered to give the complainant the third party cover whereas the complainant was denied the facility of renewing the own policy thereby enabling him to get the no claim bonus. He has also submitted that the complainant had to take a fresh policy which was marked as Ext. A2 and the complainant had lost the no claim bonus entitled to him as there were no claims made by the complainant during the previous period. Supporting the observations made by the forum below, the learned amicuscuriea argued that the opposite party had arbitrarily rejected the claim of the complainant and had committed deficiency in service by not renewing the package policy after giving the eligible claim in the policy. It is also his case that the appeal is only to harass the complainant further and he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the amicuscuriea for the respondent and also on perusing the records produced by him, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant had approached the opposite parties for renewing the package policy that expired on 15.11.06. The complainant had submitted that the vehicle had a previous policy from Bangalore Office of the first opposite party and he was entitled to no claim bonus as well as the renewal of the package policy. It is also found that the opposite parties had rejected the claim of own damage policy on the ground that the complainant had not produced the previous policy and did not produce the vehicle for inspection.

9. On an entire appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant had no case that he had produced the earlier policy for renewing the package policy and that the opposite parties had refused to renew the same in spite of production of the previous policy. It is also found that the complainant had not produced the previous policy even before the forum below. Though he would argue that there was a policy and that there was no claim during the policy period he has not adduced any evidence to show that there was a previous policy and that there was no claim during the policy period. It is also to be found that the opposite parties had offered the third party policy, which is not a continuation of the old one and for renewing the own damage policies, it is just and reasonable that the opposite parties insist for the old policy for verification and renewal. In the instant case, the complainant has no case that he has produced the old policy before the opposite parties. It is also found that the same is not produced even before the forum below. In such circumstances, we disagree with the observations of the forum below that an ordinary citizen or a common man, is hardly equipped to match the might of the state or their instrumentalities. We are inclined to agree with the contentions of the opposite parties that the complainant must approach the forum with clean hands and the allegations are to be proved by the complainant himself. In the instant case, we find that apart from the averments in the complaint, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to support his contentions.

10. As a sequel to the above, we find that the appeal is liable to be allowed and hence we do so accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 22.7.08 in CC.74/06 of CDRF, Malappuram is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.