KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 12/13

JUDGMENT DATED:21.01.2013

 (Against the order in CC.329/12 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur, dtd:29.06.2012)

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI               :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                            : MEMBER

          Jaleel.T.M,

          S/o Muhammed,

          Theparambil House,                                 : APPELLANT

          Kaippamangalam.P.O,

          Thrissur, PIN-680 681.

          (By Adv: Sri. George Cheriyan Karippaparambil)

                   Vs.

1.      Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          Reliance Centre,

          19 Walchand Hirachand Marg,

          Ballard Estate, Mumbai.

          R/by Managing Director.

2.      Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          2^nd floor, Vishnu Bldg.,

          KP Vallon Road, Kadavanthra,                 : RESPONDENTS

          Kochi, R/by Branch Head.

3.      Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          2^nd floor, Global Plaza, Vanchikulam Road,

          Poothol, Thrissur.P.O, R/by Branch Head.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

          This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.329/12 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the lower Forum dated, 29^th June 2012 rejecting the complaint filed by the complainant.

          2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum was that his car bearing registration No.KL-47-A/4914 met with an accident on November 1, 2011, that the car has a comprehensive insurance policy with the respondents/opposite parties and that the respondents have repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Therefore the complainant filed the complaint before the Forum.

          3.      The complaint was dismissed on the admission stage itself by the Forum holding that complainant has to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for obtaining the repair charges of the vehicle from the insurance company.

          4.      The complainant has not come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

          5.      Heard the counsel for the appellant.  On hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the records we are of the view that even without notice to the respondents/opposite parties the appeal can be disposed of.

          6.      The lower Forum rejected the complaint on the ground that complainant has to approach Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for obtaining the repair charges of the vehicle.  We are of the view that the said order of the Forum cannot be sustained.  Only 3^rd party claims will be before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which is clear from section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  In this case the complainant has claimed the repair charges from the respondents/opposite parties, Insurance company who is the insurer of the his own car.  Therefore we are of the view that the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.

          In the result the impugned order of the Forum rejecting the complaint is set aside.  The Forum is directed to take back the complaint on file and proceed in accordance with law.  Appellant shall appear before the Forum on March 1, 2013.

JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

VL.