Kerala

StateCommission

A/09/403

Ali Abdul Vahab - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Rajeev

30 Oct 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/09/403

(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/10/2008 in Case No. CC 168/05 of District Alappuzha)

1. Ali Abdul Vahab

Kerala

...........Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kerala

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.403/09

JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT

1. Sri.Ali Abdul Vahab,

Karukaparambil, Neerukunnam,

Vandanam.P.O,

Alappuzha.

2. Sri.Sunil Kumar, -- APPELLANTS

Erupathinavil House,

Punnapra, North Panchayath,

Punnapra, Alappuzha.

(By Adv.G.S.Rajeev)

Vs.

The Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Branch Office, XXII/387,

Annapoori Mandira, -- RESPONDENT

Cullen Road, ullackal,

Alappuzha – 688011.

(By Adv.V.Manikantan Nair)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

The appellants are the complainants in CC.168/05 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint stands dismissed.

2. It is the case of the complainants that the first complainant is the RC owner of the Motorcycle involved and that he had orally sold the vehicle to the second complainant and towards part payment for a sum of Rs.21,000/- was received. It is stated in the complaint that on 23.12.04, the vehicle was stolen. In FIR was lodged on the next day. The Police has filed final report that the vehicle could not be detected. The claim made by the first complainant was repudiated, alleging violation of policy conditions, as the RC and Insurance policy stood in the name of the complainant whereas the vehicle has been transferred to the second complainant.

3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 & 2, RW1, Exts. A1 to A6 & A6 (a), B1 to B7.

4. The Forum dismissed the complaint as it was found that the RC owner in whose name the policy has been issued, was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

5. It is pertinent to note that in Ext.A6/B3, the copy of the FIR and Ext.B4 the FIS by the second complainant it is specifically mentioned that he purchased the vehicle on 18.12.04 from Neerkunnam Muthedom veettil Navas. He has also mentioned that the RC owner is the above Navas. PW2/the second complainant when he was examined just denied that he has made such a statement to the Police. The above version of PW2 cannot be accepted. It appears that the vehicle has been sold to Navas and thereafter Navas sold the vehicle to the second complainant without effecting changes in the RC book and the policy. The above conduct of the complainants’ amount to clear violation of policy conditions. Hence there is no illegality in the order of the Forum. Hence the appeal is dismissed.