By Sri. Jose. V. Thannikaode, President:

The Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection act against Opposite party for the deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The Complainant was a pedestrian and hit by an autorikshaw bearing No. KL 12A 745 and sustained injuries on 01.02.1999. In the year 1999 itself the Complainant filed a petition before the MACT Kalpetta as OP(MV)No.665/99. In this petition the respondent was New India Insurance Company. But in the version the New India Insurance Company denied that the said vehicle was insured with them and further stated that “To the knowledge of this respondent the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd., Manjeri Branch as Policy No.570305/99/8/923 from 20.02.1998 to 19.02.1999 at the time of alleged accident. On getting this information the Complainant impleaded this Opposite Party as 4^th respondent in OP(MV)665/99. But in the version of the 4^th Respondent (Opposite Party in this case) they denied the insurance policy with them.

3. So the MACT awarded the case against R1 and R2 in the OP(MV)665/99. Since no means is pleaded by R1 and R2 the EP filed against these respondent are dismissed.

4. Thereafter on collecting the policy number from the reliable source the Complainant filed review petition before the MACT to review the order in OP(MV)665/99. The 4^th Respondent in the OP(MV)665/99, Opposite Party in this case has conceded the insurance policy. Hence the review order was passed by MACT in OP(MV)665/99 and this Opposite Party is ordered to pay the decreed amount to the Complainant but not allowed the interest for the period of delay caused in filing the review petition. Hence this complaint is filed for getting loss and compensation caused due the denial of the existing policy with the Opposite Party at the time of accident.

5. Notice were send to Opposite Party and Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version denying all the averments in the complaint and further stated that National Insurance Company Manjeri Branch Malappuram was impleaded as insurer of the said vehicle without showing any policy number. Though the accident occurred on 01.02.1999 National Insurance Company was impleaded as a party only on 20.05.2005. During the said periods the details of the policy were not available in computers. Without furnishing the policy details it would be difficult to get policy details after the lapse of seven years and that is the reason the company has denied the policy in the said case. Subsequently during 2012 the Complainant has filed review petition before the MACT Wayanad with the policy details . Immediately knowing the policy details the Opposite Party had fairly conceded the policy and tribunal has allowed the review petition. And Opposite Party prayed before the Forum, for the above said reasons the petition is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the Respondents.

6. On perusing the complaint, version, affidavit and evidence the following points are raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost

7. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit in addition to the Complainant

and stated as stated in the complaint. The Complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to

A7 is marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of petition filed by the Complainant before the MACT Wayanad which shows that the Complainant shown Opposite Party's company Manjeri Branch as R4. Ext.A2 is the copy of written statement filed by the New India Insurance Company who was the 3^rd Respondent in OP(MV)665/99. Wherein this company specifically stated that the above said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party at the time of accident with policy number and with Branch name. This shows that even the other Insurance Company can collect or made available the details of the insured vehicle even with the registration number of the vehicle. It is pertinent to note that this company was served the name of insurance company with branch name too. Ext.A3 is the copy of written statement filed by the Opposite Party in OP(MV)665/99. Which shows that this Opposite Party denied the policy of the disputed vehicle even after serving the vehicle number and branch office details, later it is conceded. Ext.A4 is the award copy of OP(MV)665/99, which shows that due to the denial of the policy by the Opposite Party the OP(MV) is awarded against R1 and R2. Ext.A5 is copy of execution petition. Ext.A6 is the IA No.2041/12 and 355(A)2012 order copy in OP(MV)665/99. Ext.A7 is reviewed award of OP(MV)665/99 dated 11.7.2012. And from the side of Opposite Party the witness is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 is marked. Ext.B1 is the certified copy of petition of OP(MV)665/99 wherein, it can see that the policy number is not mentioned. Ext.B2 is the counter statement filed by this Opposite Party in IA 355/12 in OP(MV)665/99, Wherein it can be seen that the Opposite Party conceded the policy.

8. On considering the complaint, version, affidavit, produced documents and evidence we are in the opinion that even after providing the vehicle number and company name with branch name, the denial of policy is a clear deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party. It is pertinent to note that the other insurance company ie New India Insurance company after getting only the registration number of the vehicle has found out the Insurance company with branch name and policy number. So the denial of the existing policy is a clear latches on the part of the Opposite Party, even after submitting the vehicle number Company's name and Branch name of the policy. They could have taken much time to verify the records, before denial of the policy and avoid the inconvenience causing to the victims. Since we found deficiency of service from the side of Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled for loss and damages caused and the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the same.

9. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.3,420/- the interest with 8% interest from the date of this petition ie 30.12.2012 and Rs.2,000/- as cost incurred for collecting the details of the policy and Rs.2,000/- as the loss sustained for the E.A and Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition. And Opposite party is liable to compensate the same the point No.2 is found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.3,420/- (Rupees Three thousand Four hundred and Twenty) only with interest at the rate of 8% from 30.12.2012 and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as cost incurred for collecting the policy details and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only incurred for filing the E.A before the MACT and Rs.1,000/- Rupees One thousand) only as cost of this petition to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the Complainant is entitled for the interest at the rate of 10% for whole the amount.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of January 2014.

Date of filing:30.10.2012

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

(Contd... 6)

- 6 -

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Mathew Paul. Manager, National Insurance Company,

Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Petition.

A2. Copy of Written Statement.

A3. Copy of Written Statement.

A4. Award copy of OP(MV)665/99. Dt:08.08.2006.

A5. Copy of Execution Petition. Dt:29.05.2007.

A6. Order copy in IA No.2041/12 and 355(A)/2012 in OP No.(MV)No.665/1999.

A7. Copy of Original Petition (MV) No.665/1999. Dt:11.07.2012.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Copy of Petition. Dt:12.11.1999.

B2. Copy of counter statement. Dt:16.06.2012.