Decided on March 16,2009

Liyakath Ali Khan Respondents


- (1.)THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 6.2.2003 of CDRF, Malappuran in OP No. 155/02. The complaint was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant as opposite parties claiming the insurance claim under comprehensive insurance policy. The opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground that the cause of accident is due to flood which was not covered by the policy. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 90,288 along with Rs. 2,000 as cost to the complainant. Hence the present appeal by the 1st opposite party.
(2.)IT is the case of the complainant that he had insured his Maruti Zen car with opposite parties and the vehicle was involved in an accident on 23.6.2001, while crossing bridge the vehicle fell into the canal. The bridge was having no handrails and that is the reason for falling the vehicle into the canal. The opposite parties rejected the claim on the ground that there is no coverage for damages due to flood. Hence he filed complaint before the Forum.
(3.)THE opposite parties filed a joint version contending that the accident was occurred due to the flood and damages by flood are not covered by the policy. On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent who appeared in person we find that it is the admitted case of the both parties that the accident occurred on 23.6.2001. The dispute is only with regard to the reason for the accident. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the accident occurred due to flood and that the policy did not cover the peril caused by flood. The respondent would argue that the accident had happened not due to flood and the same happened while giving way to another vehicle which came from the opposite side. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstance of the case it is found that there is no convincing evidence to substantiate the case of opposite parties that the accident happened due to flood. If flood was therein, there would have been damage to other property, building, vehicles and the likes. Here no such incidents are reported. Moreover it is also to be noted that the bridge had no hand rails and because of the sway in the canal, the driver of the vehicle could not identify the limit of the bridge and the canal and thus the accident happened. The Forum's finding that if there was flood, there would have been inundation of water in the nearby compounds is to be accepted and the opposite parties/appellants have not adduced any evidence to show that there was heavy rain justifying flood in the area wherein accident had occurred and in such circumstance it is our irresistible conclusion that the case of the complainant is to be believed.
By the impugned order the Forum below has directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 90,288. The Forum below is fully justified in directing the opposite parties to pay insured amount and the Forum has only ordered the very reasonable amount of Rs. 2,000 as cost. The Forum below has considered the material aspect of the case. We do not find any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence the same is confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the CDRF, Malappuram in OP 155/02 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned the parties are directed to suffer their respective cost. Appeal dismissed.

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