Sasi.K.P - Complainant(s)


Branch Manager,The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2024


Complaint Case No. CC/302/2023
( Date of Filing : 17 Aug 2023 )
1. Sasi.K.P
Kedaram,Kuthirapandhi House,Azhikode.P.O,Azhikode-673309.
1. Branch Manager,The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Mahe Branch Office,Main Road,Mahe-673310.
 HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew MEMBER
Dated : 17 May 2024
Final Order / Judgement


        This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  for an order directing  the OP to pay Rs.15211/- already remitted by the complainant to KSEB along with   compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and  cost of the proceedings for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  on  the  part of OP.

The brief  of the complaint :

    The  complainant is the  owner of Maruti car as per the Reg. No.KL11J8881.  The OP was insured the vehicle as per receipt No.76260131220000017907 dtd.6/3/2023 and the previous policy No.76260131210200021842.  The period of coverage as per the  policy  is from 6/3/2023 10.46- 12 A.M to 5/3/2024 11.59.59 P.M.  The complainant ‘s car had hit against  the electric post of the KSEB on 6/3/2023 at 4.15 P.M at Ayithara, Mambaram, Kolathukavu and damage  caused to the car and electric post.  On 7/3/2023 the KSEB had replaced the electric post and had issued a repair bill for Rs.15,211/- to the complainant.  The complainant had paid the amount  to the  office of Asst. Engineer , Electrical Section Kuthuparamba dtd.7/3/2023 itself.  Thereafter the complainant filed a claim application before the OP.  After receiving the claim application the OP demanded the complainant to collect  all the material documents pertaining to the claim and to submit  before their office.  Then the complainant submit all the documents  before the OP.  But the OP rejected the claim to state that the FIR is missing   that is the  most essential document to process the claim.  The complainant states that he already submitted all documents including  the general diary issued by Kuthuparamba police also.  But the OP treated the claim as “no claim “ and rejected the  claim application.  The act of  OP, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence the complaint.

       After filing the complaint notice issued to  OP .  After receiving the notice OP appeared before the commission  and filed his written version.   He contended  that the accident occurred on 6/3/2023 and on the same date on which the insurance policy commenced.  On receipt of  the claim  application the complainant was asked to collect all the material documents pertaining to the claim and submit before them as earliest.  But the complainant  submit  the claim form  only on 13/3/2023 and the document submitted by the complainant, the FIR which is the most essential documents to process the claim was missing.  Then the OP had issued a registered letter dtd.20/7/2023 to the complainant requesting  to submit the FIR within 21 days from the  receipt of the letter, failing which the claim of the complainant will be  treated as no claim.  But the complainant failed to furnish the FIR and the  claim was treated as no claim.  The repudiation of the claim was made as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as per the guide lines given by the IRDA.  So there is no deficiency of service from the side of  OP and the   complaint may be dismissed. 

      On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following  issues  were framed for consideration.

  1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite party?
  2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
  3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1to  A6 were marked. On OP’s side Exts.B1&B2 marked.

Issue No.1: 

         The  Complainant  adduced evidence before the commission by submitting  his chief affidavit in lieu of  his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the  contentions in the version.  He was cross examined as PW1 by  OPs. He relied upon  Exts.A1 to  A6 documents were marked on his part to  substantiate his case.  According to PW1, in Ext.A1 is the policy the vehicle KL11J8881 was insured  to OP.  On  6/3/2023 at 4.15 P.M the vehicle met with an accident to hit  an electric post of KSEB at Kuthuparamba, Kolathukav.  Ext.A2 is the  work  estimate for  changing damage 11KV pole in favour of  PW1 dashing Maruti car KL11J8881.  Ext.A3 is the  demand notice issued by KSEB.  Ext.A4 is the KSEB receipt(cash bill) paid  the complainant to KSEB dtd.7/8/2023 for an amount of Rs.15,211/-.  Ext.A5 is the  General Diary issued by Kuthuparamba policy station.  Ext.A6 is the repudiation letter issued by the OP to complainant dtd.7/8/2023. On OP’s side except the version the OP not produce any evidence before the commission .  The OP submits that there is no deficiency  of service on his part and produce Exts.B1&B2 document. As per Ext.A4 it clearly shows that the complainant paid Rs.15211/- to KSEB for the replacement charge of the post.  Moreover the OP’s licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor assess the extend of  damage and net  liability of the company, the claim of Rs.15,211/- is allowed and the report filed on 30/3/2023.  Another investigator also submit report on 28/4/2023 also.  On perusal of the pleadings, documents and evidence, we  the commission hold that the complainant is  the insurer who insured the vehicle to OP.  The vehicle is damaged due to accident and hit on the electric post.  Then the complainant paid Rs.15,211/- to KSEB. So we are of the considered  view that the OP is liable to pay the remitted amount of Rs.15,211/- to the complainant. But the  OP failed  to do .   So we  hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of  OP.  Hence the  issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

    As discussed above the complainant is insured his vehicle to OP.  The accident occurred on 6/3/2023 and the complainant paid the amount to KSEB on 7/3/204.  So,we hold that  the OP is directly bound  to  redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  So the complainant is entitled to get the amount  already deposited to KSEB for an amount of Rs.15,211/- from the OP.  Therefore, we hold that  the OP is liable to pay Rs.15,211/- to the complainant along with Rs.7000/ as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.  Thus issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the   opposite party to pay Rs.15211/- to the complainant (that is already deposited before the KSEB) along with  Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant  and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.15,211/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  


A1- Insurance policy

A2-Work estimate

A3-Notice issued by KSEB

A4- Electricity bill

A5-General diary

A6- Repudiation letter

B1- Policy

B2- Repudiation letter dtd.7/8/2023

PW1-Sasi.K.P- complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P


                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/



                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

[HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew]
[HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P]

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!


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

Phone Number


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.