DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2023

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

                 :   Smt.Vidya A., Member           

                 :   Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                    

   Date of Filing: 12/04/2021

CC/73/2021

Yusaf

S/o. Hamsakutty Haji, 

Palath veed, 

Kulukaloor, Pattambi                               -                                  Complainant

(By Adv. Swapnalatha) 

VS

The Manager, 

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 

1st Floor, Keezhadayil Complex, 

Ottappalam Road, 

Cherpulassery                                          -                                 Opposite party 

Palakkad 

(By Adv. K. V. Sujith)    

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member  

1. The Complainant had insured his bus bearing registration number KL52D402 with the opposite party for the period upto 29/09/2020.  Due to Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing lock down the bus was not plying from March, 2020 till January, 2021.  Accordingly the complainant obtained ‘G-form’ certificate from the Motor Vehicles Department and submitted application to the opposite party for extension of insurance cover for a period of 6 months during which the bus was kept idle.  His allegation is that the opposite party extended the cover only for 3 months inspite of a Government Order to permit extension of 6 months from January, 2021 for vehicles kept idle with G form certificate. According to him, he is entitled to get the insurance cover extended till June 2021, and hence he approached this Commission seeking an order to this effect and for the cost. 

2.  Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version. They have quoted the relevant portion of the Indian Motor Tariff Act in their version. 

      "The general rule is that the current period of insurance under the policy may be extended for a period equal to the period the policy remained suspended on account of laid up. The adoption of alternatives will be at the option of the insured. Further, the extension of policy period on account of laid up vehicles will be available provided

      1. The vehicle is not undergoing repairs during the laid up as a result of   

          an event giving rise to a claim under the policy. 

      2. Previous notice in writing has been given to the insurer by recorded    

          delivery. 

      3. The certificate of insurance has been returned to the insurer and

      4. The period of laid up / suspension of the policy shall not extend   

          “beyond 12 months from the expiry date of  the policy period in which   

          the laid up has commenced."

As per the certificate No. A/91415/2020 dated 30/09/2020, of AMVI, SRTO, Pattambi, submitted by the complainant, the vehicle was laid up from 01/04/2019 to 31/12/2020.  Hence, the opposite party had permitted extension of policy up to 30/03/2021, ie. 182 days from the original expiry date of the policy. Hence no further extension is available as per IMT Act.  They have appended a copy of the judgment, in WP(C) 22273 of 2020 of Honorable High Court of Kerala in support of their arguments.  

3. Issues involved:

1. Whether the complainant's vehicle was under G-form from March 2020 to January 2021? 
2. Whether there is any standing order of the Govt. extending the policy of vehicles under G-form?
3. Whether the non extension of policy by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part?
4. Whether complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Reliefs as to cost and compensation. 

4. The complainant as well as the opposite party didn't file proof affidavit or mark any document as evidence.  Further, the complainant was continuously absent for the proceedings.  Hence taken for orders based on merit.

5. Issues a, b, c, & d:

The complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of his pleadings. As such we are not in a position to reach any conclusion as far as issues a, b & c are concerned.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed. 

6. As the complainant failed in proving even a prima- facie case against the opposite party, by adducing sufficient evidence, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 3rd day of January, 2023.

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                                                                     President 

                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                                     Vidya A

                                                                                                    Member   

                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                             Krishnankutty N.K

                                                                                                     Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant: Nil

Documents marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.