DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  18^th day of November, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 09/03/2021    

     CC/50/2021

Kanakasree Suresh

Mohan Nivas, Gayathri Road,

Post Manisseri, Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad Dist – 679 521                                                         -           Complainant

(By Adv.E.Sureshkumar)

                                                                                                   Vs

1. The Managing Director

TVS Motor Company,

Registered Office: ‘Chaitanya’ ,

No.12, Khader Nawas Khan Road,

Nungambakkam , Chennai - 600 006

2. TVS Motor Company

Post  Box No.4, Harita,

Hosur, PIN - 635 109

3. Bharath Motors

Authorised Sales-Service-Spares Dealer,

For TVS Motor Company, Kuwait Towers,

Opp. Lakshmi Theatre,

Main Road, Ottapalam - 679 101.

4. The Sr. Divisional Manager

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Divisional Office-1, Park House,

Round North, Thrissur, PIN - 680 001

5. The Branch Manager

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

II Floor, Parappuram Towers,

Main Road, Ottapalam - 679 101

6. Haridas

Surveyor, United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

II Floor, Parappuram Towers,

Main Road, Ottapalam- 679 101                                            -           Opposite parties

(OPs 1&2 Adv.K.N.Sreelatha, Mirza Aslam Beg  & Praveen Pandey

 OP3 exparte,

 OP4 & 5 Adv.T.P.George &

 OP6 notice not served)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Pleadings in short is that the second hand vehicle purchased by the complainant on 17/10/2018 met with an accident on 24/01/2019. Claim for repair expenses were rejected by the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties, the Insurance companies, as the policy covered only third party claims. Aggrieved by repudiation of claim, this complaint is filed arraying the manufacturer as opposite parties 1 and 2, dealer as opposite party 3 and insurance agent as opposite party 6. 
2. Upon receiving notice the 4^th and 5^th opposite party alone entered appearance and filed version claiming that the insurance availed by the complainant was only a third party statutory insurance and the same did not cover Own Damages and sought for dismissal of complaint.
3. While so, on 08/11/2021, this Commission, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as comprehended from a reading of the pleadings and documents, raised a question of maintainability of the case as against the opposite parties 1,2,3 and 6, so as to prevent wild shots in the dark. On 25/08/2022 an order was passed holding that opposite parties stated above were not necessary parties and directed the counsel for complainant to remove them from party array.  

The complainant did not comply with this order, but filed a review application as R.A. 128/2022. This R.A. was dismissed on 27/10/2022 on the grounds of limitation as well as on the ground of absence of any error apparent on the face of record.

4. The checkered progress of the case can be seen from a perusal of  the proceedings sheet. Counsel for complainant is continuously absent on most occasions. On occasions when he is present he is non-responsive to the queries put for th by this Commission. He also  refused to comply with the directions of this Commission.  

In view of the continuous absence of the counsel for complainant on 25/10/2022, 27/10/2022 and 14/11/2022 and considering the refusal of the counsel for complainant to comply with a clear and unambiguous order of this Commission, this matter was taken for orders based on merits and documents produced in accordance with the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. From a perusal of the pleadings the following issues arise consideration :

1. Whether the policy bearing no.1006003118P103495729 covering covering a period of  14/6/2018 to 13/06/2019 covers Own Damage claims?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in  service on the part of the  opposite parties      4 & 5 ?

3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

4.  Any other Reliefs?

6. In view of the continuous absence of the counsel for complainant, this matter was taken up for evidence based on pleadings and documents produced. In the absence of a proof affidavit, none of the documents can be considered as exhibits in the strict sense of the word. But as the policy schedule bearing number 1006003118P103495729 covering 14/6/2018 to 13/06/2019  is in harmony with the pleadings of both parties the same is considered to arrive at a conclusion. 

            Issue Nos. 1

7. Complainant is aggrieved by denial of claim on the ground that the policy availed covered only 3^rd party claims.  The opposite parties 4 and 5 stuck to their guns in their version.
8. The complainant has produced the said certificate of insurance. The “limits of the liability” states that the policy covers only damages to 3^rd party property. Hence it is very clear that the policy availed by the complainant is only a third party policy and does not cover OD claims.
9. Resultantly case of the complainant fails.

            Issue No. 2

10. In view of the discussions above we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 4 & 5.

Issue No. 3 & 4

11.       In view of the findings in issues 1 and 2, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

12.       The complaint is dismissed accordingly.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 18^th  day of November, 2022.                                                                                                            Sd/-                                                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

NIL

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  

NIL

Court Exhibit: 

 NIL

Third party documents:

NIL

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

NIL

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  

NIL

Court Witness:

NIL