A ABDUL RAHIMAN AND ORS Vs. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-2-8
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 19,2010

A Abdul Rahiman And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Manager, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order dated:14/12/2004 of the CDRF, Kasaragodu in OP:177/2004. The appellant was the complainant and the respondent was the opposite party in the said OP:177/04 which was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not honoring the insurance claim with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No:KL -13 B -5243. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version contending that the complainant/insured was not having the insurable interest over the vehicle at the time of theft of the vehicle on 20/1/2001. Thus, the opposite party justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the complainant.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below the power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A5 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party. Exts.B1 to B10 documents were marked on the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint in OP:177/04. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) WE heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued for the position that the vehicle was insured by the appellant/complainant and he was the registered owner of the vehicle. He has also relied on the testimony of PW1 and submitted that there was nothing on record to support the case of the opposite party/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd that the complainant/insured was not having interest over the insured vehicle. He also relied on the certificate of registration with respect to the vehicle KL -13 B/5243 and argued for the position that the said vehicle was having hire purchase endorsement and the complainant was not in a position to transfer the vehicle. Thus, the appellant/complainant prayed for setting side the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow the complaint in OP:177/04. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He much relied on B1, B5 and B10 documents and argued for the position that the appellant/complainant had no insurable interest over the insured vehicle on 20/1/2001, the date of theft of the insured vehicle. Thus, the respondent requested for dismissal of the present appeal. The points that arise for consideration are: - 1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent/opposite party/ insurance company in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the appellant/complainant with respect to the insured vehicle No:KL -13 B -5243? 2. Whether the respondent/opposite party can be justified in repudiating the insurance claim on the ground that the appellant/complainant had no insurable interest over the insured vehicle on 20/1/2001? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated:14/12/2004 passed by CDRF, Kasaragodu in OP:177/04?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.