Date of filing : 01-08-2006<br /> Date of Order : 22-05-2008.<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD<br /> CC.No.88/2006<br /> Dated this, the 22nd day of May 2008.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> K.M.Abdulla, S/o.Late Mohammed, <br /> M.P.Quarters, Eriyal, Kudlu.Po, Kasaragod,<br /> Rep.by General Power of Attorney Holder, } Complainant<br /> Ajith.N. S/o.Narayana Bhoopas Compound,<br /> Madhur Road, Karandakkad, kasaragod.<br /> (Adv. George John Plamootil)<br /> <br /> The Manager,<br /> National Insurance Company Ltd, } Opposite party<br /> Kasaragod Branch.<br /> (Adv.M.Balagopalan, Kanhangad)<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/C 488 duly insured with Opposite party as per policy No.571101/31/02/6205791 was stolen during the period of insurance cover. The claim preferred by complainant with all necessary documents with Opposite party was not materialised. Hence he preferred a complaint earlier ash OP.No.70/05. In the version filed in said case Opposite party stated that the complainant has not preferred any claim and hence they are not liable to compensate the complainant. The Forum then passed an order directing the complainant to file a proper written claim to Opposite party and with the said direction complaint dismissed on 18-07-2005. Thereafter the complainant several times approached Opposite party, but Opposite party refused to issue claim form. Hence the complainant praying for an order directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.44000/- with 12% interest from 7-8-2003 with Rs.5000/-as compensation and costs of the proceedings.<br /> 2. According to Opposite party the Power of Attorney Holder has no right to represent the complainant. The policy No.571101/31/02/6700005462 is only ‘Act Policy’. The complainant approached the Opposite party informing the theft of vehicle and produced policy 571181/31/02/6700005462. Then the opposite party stated that he had not filed any written claim. Hence the complainant caused a lawyer notice showing the policy No.571101/31/02/6205791. In reply Opposite party stated that said policy is only an Act policy, hence theft is not covered. Thereafter the complainant again sent a lawyer notice stating that the policy number shown in the earlier notice was not correct and showing correct policy number asked to settle the loss. Thereafter on verification it is found that the said policy was taken by Canara Bank, Kasaragod in respect of new vehicle. The policy No.571101/31/02/6700005462 shows different engine number but it relates to the complainant’s vehicle KL-14 C 488. So according to Opposite party vehicle of the complainant has having two insurance policies for same period. The further case of the Opposite party is that the complainant has not placed any written claim till 7-6-04 (the date of registered notice). Further even after disposal the complainant Abdulla has not approached in person for claim form for fulfilling the formalities placing the claim. According to opposite party the complainant has to present the claim form in person. The claim has to be made forthwith. But the complainant has not either present before the company or requested for any claim form. After disposal of OP 70/05. The complainant’s power of attorney approached the company and after verification of power of attorney it is found that it was only for empowering the Power of Attorney to contest OP No.70/05. Hence the company did not entertain the complainant’s power of attorney holder. Further the policy shows only Rs.36,0000/- (Rupees Thirty six thousand only) as IDV(insured Declared Value) of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim more than Rs.36,000/- as per the terms of the policy. The complainant is not entitled to claim any interest since he himself delayed the claim. The complainant has to transfer the RC in the name of company and to surrender RC and keys of the vehicle. The hypothecation also to he cleared, hence the complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim Exts.P1 to P12 were marked on the side of complainant. Opposite party has not filed any counter affidavit but marked Exts B1 & B2. Both sides heard.<br /> 4. The complainant in his affidavit has stated that he submitted the claim form and other documents before the opposite party and approached opposite party several times but opposite party not paid the amount. Hence he caused lawyer notice dtd. 10-08-2004. But according to opposite party he did not submitted the claim form. <br /> 5. A common man who is entitled to get any amount by way of a motor claim will not abandon his claim unless he is barred specifically. So the contention of opposite party that the complainant has not filed any claim is not believable. Apart from that from the contention of the Opposite party it can be seen that they are highly arbitrary, untenable and opposite party is trying to evade from the legal liability of paying the claim. Can we believe that the insurance companies are issuing claim forms only to policy holder who personally present before the company requesting the claim form? Is it so meticulous that the policy holder shall himself he personally present before the company for getting a claim form?<br /> Insurance companies are issuing policies not only to individuals but in the name of companies, corporations, Departments of Government, etc. Can the opposite party insist that all they shall be present to get a claim form? Is it practical? Our answer is negative.<br /> “ THE ISSUE OF THIS FORM NOT TO BE TAKEN <br /> AS ANY ADMISSION OF LIABILITY”<br /> Is printed in bold letters in every claim form. From this itself it is clear that it is not the issuance of claim form that is material but the submission of claim form with documents are important for settlement of claims. Truly the vehicle was having two policies. One is taken by the Banker, perhaps the complainant may not be aware about the same so he cannot be find fault with.<br /> 6. Even after having two policies the irony is that his claim is not settled. He has to steps through the corridors of the Forum twice seeking orders for the redressal of his grievance. The Opposite party has even shown the audacity to ignore the earlier directions issued by the Forum in OP.No.70/05 by taking lame excuses that the policy holder himself was not present and his power of attorney has no authority to demand claim form etc.<br /> 7. We are of the opinion that the stand taken by opposite party in this case is not only lamentable but condemnable. The IDV of the motor vehicle KL-14/C 488 at the relevant period of policy was Rs.36,000/-. Certainly the complainant is entitled for the same.<br /> Hence we direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.36,000/-(Rupees thirty six thousand only) to the complainant towards the loss of the vehicle covered by the policy No.571101/31/02/6205791. Opposite party further directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum from 20-09-2003 the date on which the complainant said to have preferred the claim by way of compensation to the complainant for the loss and hardship and costs suffered by him. Time for compliance of this order is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Failing which on application by the complainant proceedings will be initiated U/s 25 & 27 of CP Act.<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts.<br /> P1. 8-8-03 copy of FIR<br /> P2. Copy of policy issued by the OP<br /> P3. 10-8-04 copy of lawyer notice issued to OP<br /> P4. 11-8-04 postal acknowledgment card.<br /> P5.18-8-04 reply notice.<br /> P6.26-4-04 Memo issued by the JFCM Court, Kasaragod to show the case referred as <br /> UD.<br /> P7. R.C.Copy<br /> P8. 18-7-2005 Order of the Hon.Forum, C.D.R.F, Kasaragod.<br /> P9.9-8-05 letter issued to the OP.<br /> P10.24-10-05 Reply notice issued by OP<br /> P11. 10-8-2006 letter issued from Canara Bank, Kasaragod to complainant<br /> P12. 10-08-2006 The Form 35<br /> B1.Insurance policy of Abdulla.<br /> B2.Photo copy of Special Power of Attorney<br /> <br /> Pj/ Forwarded by Order<br /> <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br />