DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  06^th day of February, 2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 16/03/2019    

                         CC/81/2019

Sivan K,

S/o.Krishnan,

Puzhakkal House, Mattumantha,

C.N.Puram, Palakkad – 678 005                                 -                       Complainant

(By Adv. M/s C. Sreekumar & M. Hakkim)

                                                                                    Vs

1. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Corporate Office at “Natraj”, 101, 201, 301,

Jn. of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla Road,

Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 069

Rep.by Senior Manager

2. M/s.Sivam Service Ltd.,

249/H, GT Road, North Liluah,

Howrah – 711 204, Rep.by Manager

3. Mohan Motor Business Pvt.Ltd.,

Khejurcala Kona Truck Terminal,

Kona Express,  Bankara PS Post Office,

Domjur, Howrah – 711 403

Rep.by its Manager

4. M/s.Thrikka  Solutions,

TC 28/1833, Aswathy,

Thakaraparambu Road, Trivandurm – 695 023

Rep. by its Manager                                             -                       Opposite parties

                   (OP1  by Adv. P. Prasad

                     OP2 & 4 Ex-parte

                     OP3 No representation)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complainant’s lorry, insured with the 1^st opposite party, met with a fatal accident while in transit at Calcutta on 28/10/2016. Eventhough the complainant reached Calcutta immediately, he was under the impression that the hospital authorities would inform the accident to the police authorities and FIR might have been lodged. When he came to understand that FIR was not lodged, he lodged FIR on 18/01/2017.The complainant had filed his claim and the 1^st opposite party had initiated the investigation and further proceedings in the claim through the O.P.s 2 to 4. Till date, the opposite parties had not considered the claim of the complainant and disbursed the claim amount. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed

2.         Opposite party 1 filed version seeking dismissal of the complaint pleading that the opposite party 1 had taken all efforts to settle the claim of the complainant, but it was only because, the complainant failed to hand over the details sought for by the investigator that the claim was not being processed. Communications and reminders issued were unheeded by the complainant. As the complainant failed to produce the required documents, the claim was closed. Claim was never rejected or repudiated. They also raised objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to adjudicate this case.

3.         The following issues arise for consideration:

1          Whether the 1^st O.P. failed to honour the Policy conditions?

2.         Whether there is   deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party 1?

3.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

4.         Reliefs, if any?

4.         Complainant failed to adduce any evidence.  Chief affidavit of complainant was first ordered on 17/06/2019. Thereafter, after a couple of postings, the complainant sought to  amend the complaint and fresh proof affidavit was directed to be filed on 29/01/2020. Thereafter, for over 12 postings, the complainant kept seeking time. On 17/12/2021, complainant’s evidence was closed. After 8 months, complainant filed an application as I.A. 345/22 seeking to reopen the evidence of complainant. Reason for not filing proof affidavit, as per affidavit in support of the I.A., was that he was not aware that he had not filed the same (para3,page 2).  One can only wonder what purpose the proceedings of a complaint reproduced in the ‘A’ diary would serve. Since the I.A. was only an abuse of the process of law, the same was dismissed.

            Opposite party 1 filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B7. Marking of Exts. B1 to B7 were objected to on the ground they were photocopies. Since this Commission need not resort to the tenets of Evidence Act and in the absence of a plea that these documents are either concocted or forged, objections of the complainant are overlooked.

Issue Nos.1 & 2

5.         Issue nos. 1 and 2 are dealtwith together.

6.         As already stated, the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence. Hence this Commission is left with no documentary evidence to rely on to arrive at a conclusion regarding the veracity of the pleadings of the complainant.

7.         Exts. B1 to B7 stands proved. Ext. B2 is a preliminary report dated 16/08/2017 issued by a surveyor of the 1^st opposite party. A reading of the said report, especially the portions relating to headings (1) Load chalan/Passengers; (2) Cause and nature of accident; (3)Verification of documents; and (4) Notes in 2^nd page proves that the insured/complainant had failed to hand over any relevant details for perusal of the surveyor.

Exts. B4 report filed by Addl. O.P.4 clearly shows that the insured failed to co-operate with the surveyors investigation.

Ext. B5 report also points to the non-co-operative attitude of the complainant.

Exts. B6 and B7 are reminders issued by the 1^st O.P. to the complainant seeking for documents pertaining to queries raised by the surveyor. The complainant has no case that he is not in receipt of the said communications.

8.         The complainant had not been meticulous in the conduct of the case. The proceedings were marked by lethargy and delaying. One cannot overlook the fact that this was an accident which has led to the death of a person. Hence the Insurance companies would be cautious in dealing with the matter. Further, the claim is not denied or rejected. It was only closed for want of necessary documents.

9.         Thus there are no merits in the case. Issue no. 1 is held against the complainant.

10.       Hence we do not find any irregularity or illegality on the part of the  1^st opposite party.

            Issue No.3

11.       Banking on the findings in issues 1 and 2 we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

12.       Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed.

            Issue No. 4

13.       In cases where an adverse cause of action arises due to the conduct of the  complainant himself justice demands that a cost be cast on the complainant for abusing the process of law and for trying to mislead and misguide the process of law.

14.       Yet considering the fact that the complainant had already undergone enough suffering by loss of his vehicle and death of his brother in law in the said accident we are taking a lenient view. We refrain from imposing cost on the complainant.

15.       In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 6^th   day of  February, 2023.        

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                            Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

        Sd/-                                                                    Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext. B1:  Copy of communication dated 31/3/2016 along with policy details

Ext. B2:  Copy of Motor Preliminary Survey Report dated 16/8/2017

Ext. B3:  Copy of FIR bearing No.28/17 along  with FIS

Ext. B4:  Copy of report dated 5/6/17 of OP4

Ext. B5:  Copy of report dated 20/4/17 of OP2

Ext. B6:  Copy of second reminder dated 11/11/17

Ext. B7: Copy of final reminder dated 11/12/17

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.