KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    APPEAL  NO.475/2004

JUDGMENT DATED:  12.10.2011

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                    : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                 :  MEMBER

1.      The Divisional Manager

          National Insurance Co. Ltd,

Kollam.

2.      The General Manager

          National Insurance Co. Ltd,

          Branch No. 1, P.Bo. No. 69,

          Soundarya Building, 2^nd Floor,

          M.G.Road, Trivandrum – 645 001 :  APPELLANTS

3.      The Divisional Manager

          National Insurance Co. Ltd.

          Trissur Branch, Trissur.

(By Adv. Saji Issac K.J.)

Vs

1.      T. Chandrika

          W/o. Late Muttath Ambu

          Pilicode Vayal P.O.,

Pilicode,Hosdurg, Kasaragod.

2.      T. Ranjith

             - do-

3.      T. Rajitha

             - do-

4.      T. Ajith

             - do-

(R1 to R4 By Adv. R. Padmakumari)

5.      The Commissioner

          Kerala Fisherman Welfare-            :  RESPONDENTS

          Fund Board, Thrissur.

6.      The Managing Director,

          Matayafed,

          P.O. Kuravankonam,

          Thiruvananthapuram.

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

Appellants are the opposite parties 3 to 5 and respondents are the complainants 1 to 4 and opposite parties 1 and 2 in the complaint in OP.231/03 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/National Insurance Company in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainants who are the legal heirs of the policy holder, Muttath Ambu.  The opposite parties 3 to 5 entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service.  They contended that the death of the life assured Muttath Ambu was not covered by the policy issued by the National Insurance Company and so they justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim.

2.      Before the Forum below, the 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 documents were marked on the side of the complainants.  From the side of the opposite parties Exts.B1 to B4 documents were marked.  No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite parties.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:22^nd January 2004 allowing the complaint by directing the opposite parties 2 to 5 to pay the benefits under B3 and B4 insurance policies.  Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 3 to 5 therein.

3.      When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondents 1 to 6.  We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties 3 to 5.  He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He argued for the position that the claim is barred by limitation and that the death of the insured Muttath Ambu was not covered by the policy issued in his favour.  Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

4.      There is no dispute that deceased Muttath Ambu was covered by B3 and B4 policy issued by the appellant/opposite party, National Insurance Company Limited through the Managing Director, Matsyafed.  Admittedly, the insured Muttath Ambu died on 6.12.99 while he was engaged in rescue operation in connection with the catching of fire to a coir factory situated in the locality of his residence.  It is rightly held by the Forum below that the insured Muttath Ambu died in an accident.  Admittedly, death due to accident is covered by the B3 and B4 policy.  If that be so, the complainants in OP.231/03 are entitled to get the benefits under B3 and B4 policies issued by the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd.

5.      The Forum below has also considered the contention regarding question of limitation.  The correspondence between the complainants and the opposite parties would make it clear that the complainants were interested in getting the insurance benefits and they were insisting the opposite parties to disburse the insurance claim.  It is also to be noted that the claim was repudiated only on 15.1.2001 and the complaint was filed on 7.10.2003.  No doubt that the complaint was filed after the lapse of 2 years.  But it is to be noted that the aforesaid repudiation of the claim was not intimated the complainants.  But the insurance company has only informed opposite parties 1 and 2.  So, the repudiation of the claim came to be knowledge of the complainants only after 15.1.2001.  If that be so, the complaint in OP.231/03 filed on 7.10.2003 can be treated as one filed within the stipulated time.  The 1^st complainant as PW1 has also deposed about the knowledge of repudiation of their claim.  There is no contra evidence forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties.  So, the Forum below can be justified in holding that the claim preferred in OP.231/03 is not barred by limitation.  We have no hesitation to endorse the aforesaid findings of the Forum below. 
If that be so, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be upheld.  Hence we do so.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP.231/03 is confirmed.  As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs throughout.

M.V. VISWANATHAN  : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

M.K. ABDULLA SONA          :  MEMBER

VL.