M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite party/ insurance company, having suffered an adverse order in hands of the District Forum, Madurai, in OP.No.116/2003, has come to this Commission for redressal.
(2.) The respondent/ complainant approached the District Forum for the recovery of a sum of Rs.18,83,338/-, in addition to other claims, on the grounds with among other grounds, that the consignment consist of 30 bales of cotton linen fabrics, were dispatched to the consignee M/s.Uma Maheswari Fabrics, through their own truck TAZ-114, under invoice No.204 d.30.7.99, valued at Rs.18,83,338/-, that the truck was covered by tarpaulin and when the vehicle was proceeding from Sivagangai to Erode, at about 1.00 a.m on 31.7.99, had met with an accident due to the burst of tire on the right side, resulting capsizing the vehicle, in which the entire bales of fabrics were completely damaged, for which upon complaint, a criminal case also has been registered, that immediately the accident was reported to the insurance company, which has issued policies, covering the risk, that despite two surveyors surveyed the damages and recommended for the relief, when the complainant had lodged a claim under the policy, the insurance company instead of complying the order, repudiated the same, on the basis of the 3rd survey report, which was not even informed to the complainant, that inspite of repeated notice also, informing repudiation is incorrect, they have failed to comply the demands, thereby compelling the complainant to come to the Consumer Forum for redressal.
(3.) The appellant/opposite party, admitting the coverage under the Marine Open Policy, for the period from 6.9.99 to 5.9.2000, would contend with among other grounds, that when the accident was informed, it deputed a surveyor by name Mr.Kathiresan, and not satisfied with the said surveyor report, the Regional Office of the opposite party, has appointed another surveyor, whose report was also not satisfactory, that the complainant had violated the policy conditions of the insurance policy, as well as the report revealed that a false claim has been made upon the fabricated documents, and when the same was reported so by the 3rd surveyor, the claim was repudiated, in which there could be no deficiency in service or negligence as the case may be, and this being so, the claim of the complainant for compensation etc., are highly frivolous, and liable to be rejected.;