Kerala

StateCommission

A/694/2018

KADEEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jun 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 694/2018

JUDGMENT DATED :25.06.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.47/2018 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram order dated 30.04.2018)

PRESENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.K. SURENDRA MOHAN      : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A                   : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

        Kadeeja, W/o.Abdul Azees, Karayil House, Kaduppuram,

        Karayil House, Kaduppuram, Koottilangadi Post,

        Malappuram District – 676 506

 

                        (By Adv.Sri.K.P.Moyin)

 

                                VS

 

RESPONDENT / OPPOSITE PARTY

The Divisional Manager, M/s.New India Assurance   Company Ltd, Divisional Office, 1^ST Floor, V.V.Complex,

Kozhikkode Road, Perinthalmanna Post,

Malappuram District – 679 322

Rep.by the Divisional Manager

                         JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN       : PRESIDENT

                    Complainant is the husband of one Abdul Azeeez, who who died on 12.08.2015. He was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 53/1126. The vehicle was insured with the respondent as per policy No.9800031160104123236. On 30.03.2017 the vehicle met with an accident and the surveyor assessed an amount of Rs 69,250/- as the repair charges of the vehicle. Since the accident was caused by hitting an electric post the Electricity Board claimed an amount of Rs 6992/- which was paid by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant preferred a claim before the respondent which was repudiated on 23.06.2017. Aggrieved by such repudiation the appellant approached the District Forum.

 

                    2. The District Forum considered the contentions, noticed that the RC owner had expired on 12.08.2015 though the policy continued to be renewed in his name. The accident had occurred on 30.03.2017. Therefore it was held that the appellant had no privitiy of contract with the company. Accordingly, the complaint has been dismissed.

 

                   

                    3. According to the counsel Shri.K.P.Moiyeen, after the accident the insurance company had initiated proceedings for assessing the damage and compensating the loss by issuing claim form and appointing a surveyor to assess the loss. Such procedure according to the counsel would not have been initiated without  verifying the records and satisfying itself that the claim was maintainable. In view of the above, it is contended that the repudiation of the claim was unjustified and amounts to deficiency in service.

 

                    4. Heard. This appeal comes up for admission. It is not disputed that the registered owner of the vehicle had died on 12.08.2015. The insurance policy that covered the vehicle was in his name. Obviously because of the fact that his death had not been brought to the notice of the respondent / company, the policy was being renewed in the name of the dead person. Since the registered owner was dead, such renewal of the insurance policy in his name was of no consequence. The appellant who is the wife of the dead person was not a party to the insurance policy. Therefore as rightly found by the District Forum there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. There was no valid contract of insurance in this case for the reason that one of the parties was a dead person. The District Forum was therefore fully justified in dismissing the complaint.

 

                    For the foregoing reasons, we find no ground to admit this appeal. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

                   

JUSTICE.K. SURENDRA MOHAN    : PRESIDENT

 

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 694/2018

JUDGMENT DATED :25.06.2019