DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  23^rd day of February, 2023

  CC/152/2022

Sivadasan                                                       -                       Complainant

S/o.Krishnan,

Palackal Parambu,

Thadukkassery, Keralassery,

Palakkad – 678 641

(By Adv. K.V. Sujith)

                                                                                    Vs

The Branch Manager                                      -                       Opposite party

            M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
            Branch Office, Malabar Gold Buildings,

            Kandath Complex, Palakkad – 678 001

            (By Adv. T. Giri)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Brief pleadings for adjudicating the dispute are that the complainant’s on while riding a motorcycle met with an accident  and succumbed to his injuries on 24/3/2021. At the time of accident the bike was insured with the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to receive the sum assured. But the opposite party rejected the legitmate claim of the complainant. Aggrieved thereby this complaint is filed.
2. Opposite party filed version stating that the bike was purchased by the deceased from one Shamseer E.B., S/o.Bava.  As on the date of accident there was a valid and subsisting policy in the name of the aforesaid Shamseer covering the period 14/6/2020 to 13/6/2021. Name of the person covered under the policy had not been changed to that of the deceased.
3. Since the dispute involved could be ascertained summarily by way of pleadings and the policy schedule produced by the complainant, the matter was taken up for orders, without resorting to pre-trial and evidence stages.
4. The complainant has produced the policy schedule he is relying on.  The said policy bearing No.3008013120P102486352 is seen issued in the name of Mr.Shamseer E.B. Registration No. of the vehicle is KL-48-E-8459, the same number as that of the bike of the deceased. Period of cover is 14/6/2020 to 13/6/2021. Opposite party has also produced the same document as part of their document.
5. It is pertinent to note that this is not a Third party claim. Since this is not a Third party claim, the coverage does not pass with the vehicle. This policy will have to be interpreted as just any other agreement entered into between two parties.
6. Since the policy schedule covers only the person named therein, viz. Shamseer, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
7. Therefore we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly we dismiss the complaint.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 23^rd day of  February, 2023.        

                                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                                 President

                       Sd/-

                  Vidya.A

                                        Member        

           Sd/-                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                        Member