BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.469/11
Dated this the 5th day of July 2012.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
ORDER
By G. Yadunadhan, President:
The petition was filed on 22-11-2011. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a registered owner of Toyota Innova Car bearing No. KL-57A-9817. On 10-4-2011 this vehicle met with an accident. Due to the accident it needed some repair. Surveyor was appointed and inspected the vehicle, prepared a survey report stated that the repair charges altogether will come to Rs.1,15,000/-. Unfortunately the insurance company repudiated the claim stating that the vehicle was transferred to some other person before accident. According to the complainant this is a false statement made by the opposite parties. Therefore complainant is seeking relief against the opposite parties-1 and 2 directing them to pay repair charge of Rs.1,35,000/- along with compensation.
Opposite party after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version. It is admitted that the vehicle was insured with these opposite parties and denied the accident and further stating that the vehicle is owned and in possession of the petitioner is denied since the petitioner has already sold the vehicle to Mr. Abdul Jaleel. C.P., C.P. House, Manakkadavu, Calicut. The opposite party was informed and surveyor inspected the vehicle and found that opposite party was responsible for damages to the tune of Rs.1,15,000/- is also false and denied by these opposite parties. This opposite party has sent a notice stating that the petitioner has transferred the vehicle to another person and the insured is not having any insurable interest on the insured vehicle is admitted by this opposite party and further denied that the petitioner caused financial loss. The insurance contract is between two persons insured and the insurer. When the vehicle is sold to some one the contract becomes void. This is construed as violation of basic principle of contract which is in utmost good faith and consensus ad idem besides non declaration of material fact. Insurance company has no obligation and no liability or responsibility to pay any damages or compensation to the petitioner in the light of the absence of allegation of negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration (1) Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties-1 and 2? If so what is the relief and costs.
Complainant was continuously absent for the last four consecutive postings, similarly on 17-2-12, 20-3-12, 2.5.12 and 4-7-12. All those days the complainant willfully and deliberately not appeared before this Forum. Hence the case is taken for orders on merit. Complainant was not examined or failed to produce the relevant documents to substantiate their case before this Forum. Apart from the notice issued by the opposite parties policy or relevant document was not seen produced in this case. Opposite parties filed a detailed version and made contention that the insured has no insurable interest upon the vehicle. Since the vehicle was transferred in the name of Mr. Abdul Jaleel and without producing the original R.C. and insurance policy the Fora cannot go beyond the contention made by the opposite parties in their version. Perusing the version filed by the opposite parties and original complaint filed by the complainant there is no merit in this case. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed without any costs.
Pronounced in the open court this the 5th day of July 2012.
Date of filing : 22-11-2011.
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
// True copy //
(Forwarded/By order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
