SOBHANAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2009 of CDRF, Kollam in CC.No.153/07, that the present appeal is filed by the complainant. By the impugned order, the forum has dismissed the complaint.

(2.) THE case of the complainant before the forum was that he was the owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 3D -6723 which had a valid Insurance Policy with the opposite party for the period from 11.9.2004 to 10.9.2005 and that on 30.6.2005 at about 11 p. m, the vehicle met with an accident at Pattithanam Kavala. The vehicle skidded and hit on an Iron Electric post causing damage to the post. The accident was timely informed to the opposite party and that on the directions of the opposite party; the complainant filed the claim form. It is averred by the complainant that the opposite party directed him to pay the estimate amount to the KSEB and to produce the estimate, the receipt for the payment and other relevant records for getting the claim. The complainant has stated that he had submitted all the documents with a letter dated 25.10.2005 and the opposite party rejected the claim with the objection that the complainant made the payment to the KSEB without the consent of the opposite party. In spite of receiving notice from the complainant the opposite party refused the payment and hence the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay the claim with 12% interest and cost of Rs.2000/ -.

(3.) THE opposite party resisted the complaint by filing version where in it was contended that the complainant is not a consumer and that under section 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, the complainant ought to have raised the claim before the appropriate authority as Electricity Board is a 3rd party as far as the opposite party is concerned. It was also submitted that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not intimating the accident to the insurer and paying the amount to the KSEB without the written consent from the opposite party. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part in refusing the claim.