STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/16/608 null THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - VARIKKODAN BUILDING FIRST FLOOR NILAMBUR ROAD MANJERI ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus UMMER PRESENT ADDRESS - MADATHODI HOUSE THELAKKAD PO VELATHUR PERINTALMANNA ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.608/2016 JUDGEMENT DATED : 17.02.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.93/2013 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

st The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Varikkodan Building, 1 Floor, Nilambur Road, Manjeri represented by the Deputy Manager, Third Party Claims Hub, Panamugham Building, Govt. Press Road, Thiruvananthapuram (by Adv. M. Nizamudeen)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Ummer, S/o Abdulkhader Haji, Madathodi House, Thelakkad P.O., Velathur, Perinthalmanna

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.93/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant was the owner of a car bearing registration No. KL 53 B

5652, which was covered by an insurance policy for the period from 17.08.2011 to 16.08.2012 issued by the opposite party. On 05.08.2012 at about 1 p.m., while the complainant was driving the said vehicle, it hit against a compound wall of a house at a place near to Milma Plant, Nilambur and as a consequence, the car sustained heavy damage. The complainant repaired the car by spending an amount of Rs.2,49,300/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred only). The insurance surveyor appointed by the opposite party assessed the damage at Rs.1,66,200/-(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Two Hundred only). The opposite party had already paid the amount estimated by the surveyor of the opposite party. However, since the entire amount was not paid by the opposite party, the above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed counter admitting the policy coverage of the car of the complainant. The opposite party also admitted the insurance policy. However, the opposite party contended that, since the claimed amount exceeded Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), the survey report as provided under Section 64UM(4) of the Insurance Act was required to be considered for honouring the claim of the complainant. Since the amount assessed by the surveyor was already paid, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4. Before the District Commission, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for the opposite party.

5. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to pay Rs.83,100/-(Rupees Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred only) as the balance amount to be paid towards the repairing charges to the complainant along with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only).

6. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

7. It is not disputed that the car of the complainant had a valid insurance coverage for the period from 17.08.2011 to 16.08.2012 issued by the opposite party. It is also not disputed that the said car met with an accident on 05.08.2012 at about 1 p.m. and as a consequence, the car sustained heavy damage.

8. The complainant would contend that the complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.2,49,300/-(Rupees Two Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred only) for repairing the vehicle. However, the opposite party had contended tha