Kerala

Malappuram

OP/04/138

T. GOPAKUMAR, S/O. UNNEERI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

N. SRI PRAKASH

09 Apr 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. OP/04/138

T. GOPAKUMAR, S/O. UNNEERI
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. Complainant is aggrieved that opposite party failed to reimburse the amount paid by him to Kerala State Electricity Board for the property damages sustained in an accident involving the vehicle owned by complainant. 2. Opposite party filed version denying the allegations in the complaint. Issuance of policy is admitted. It is stated that complainant failed to intimate the accident to opposite party within reasonable time and that any claim for third party property damages can be adjudicated by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only. 3. Evidence in this case consists of affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on behalf of opposite party. 4. According to complainant the Jeep KL-10 C/7547 hit against an electric post belonging to Kerala State Electricity Board on 24-01-04. Complainant informed opposite party and with consent and direction of opposite party Rs.4999/- was paid to Kerala State Electricity Board. Ext.A1 is the receipt of payment of amount. Opposite party refuted these allegations and contended that complainant had not obtained written consent from opposite party prior to settlement which is violation of conditions of the policy. Ext.B1 is the policy. As per condition No.2 no settlement can be made by the insured without the written consent of the Company. Complainant has no case that he obtained written consent of opposite party before settlement of the claim directly. Complainant has thus violated the policy condition and opposite party is therefore right in repudiating the claim. We find opposite party not deficient in service. 5.In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to costs. Dated this 9th day of April, 2008. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4 Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the policy schedule of policy No.760204 /31/03/00691 Ext.A2 : Receipt for Rs.4991/- dated, 31-1-04 from opposite party to complainant. Ext.A3 : Letter dated, 25-1-2004 sent by opposite party to complainant. Ext.A4 : Carbon copy of the lawyer notice dated, 23-4-2004 sent by complainant's counsel to opposite party Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Commercial vehicles package policy. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER




......................AYISHAKUTTY. E
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI