KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.565/12

JUDGMENT DATED 21.1.2013

(Appeal filed against the order    in CC No.138/11 on the file of CDRF,   Kasaragod  dated 23.04.2012)

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q.BARKATH ALI                 --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                             --  MEMBER

1.      M/s Relianc General Insurance Co.Ltd,

          19, Reliance Centre,  Watchand,

          Hiraichand marg, Ballard estate,

          Mumbai.                                                     --  APPELLANTS

2.      Manager,

          Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,

1^st Floor, Aditya tower,

Kannur 670 002.

              (By Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satheesh)

                   Vs.

Safiya,

Safwan Villa, Athinhal,                                        --  RESPONDENT

Manikoth P.O.

   (By Adv.Nasee,a & Ors.)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q.BARKATH ALI,PRESIDENT

          This is an appeal filed by the opposite party/Insurance Company challenging the order of the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.No.138/11 dated April 23, 2012.

          2. The respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging that he is the RC owner of the Hyundai I 10 car bearing Reg.No.KL-60/A 4157 which is insured with the first appellant/first opposite party ie; M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd; Mumbai,   that second appellant/second opposite party  which is the   Branch office of the first opposite party   issued a cover note which is valid  up to December 31,2010    that on  June 13, 2011       while the son-in-law of the complainant with his family were traveling in the car  the Judicial 1^st class Magistrate (Mobile) imposed a  fine of Rs.1000/- as the cover note expired on December 31, 2010 and that therefore complainant has filed the complaint claiming compensation.

          3. The appellants/opposite parties in their version   contended that the complainant had received the policy even prior to the  date of incident and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The son-in-law of complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1  to A3 were marked on to the side of the complainant  before the forum.  No evidence was adduced by  the opposite parties. 

          5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the forum   found that the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to show that the complainant received the original   policy prior to the date of the incident and allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and a cost of Rs.2000/-.  Opposite parties have  come up in   appeal challenging the said order.

          6. Heard the counsel for the appellants and respondent.

          7. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order of the forum can be sustained.

          8. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties to show that the complainant has received the policy prior to the date of incident that is prior to June 13, 2011.  Ext.A3 policy shows that it was signed on 18.10.10  at Bombay.  Therefore in our view the forum is perfectly justified in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not delivering the policy to the complainant in time and allowing the complaint. 

          In the result we find   no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.1000/-.

JUSTICE  P.Q.BARKATH ALI  --  PRESIDENT

 M.K.ABDULLA SONA          --  MEMBER