STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/514/2017 null BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE PRESENT ADDRESS - THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, KIZHAKEDATHU BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689645 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SANEESH ABRAHAM PRESENT ADDRESS - CHHRAMKUNNEL HOUSE, VALIYATHOVALA.P.O, IDUKKI- 686510 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE, S RAJEEV (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SANEESH ABRAHAM, In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 514/2017 JUDGEMENT DATED : 18.03.2025 (Against the order in C.C. No.266/2015 on the files of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

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

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kizhakedathu Building, Main Road, Pathanamthitta – 689 645 (by Adv. S. Rajeev)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

Saneesh Abraham, Chhramkunnel House, Valiyathovala P.O., Idukki – 686

510

2.

The Manager, M.G.F. Motor Limited, Opposite Milma Diary, Vadavathoor P.O., Kottayam – 686 533 (by Adv. S. Reghukumar and Adv. Binu Mathew for R2)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1 opposite party in C.C. No.266/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant was the owner of a Hyundai car bearing registration No.

KL 37 B 2278 which met with an accident on 05.05.2015 at Changanachery and as a consequence, the car sustained damage. An entry was made in the General Diary of Changanachery Police Station in connection with the accident. No crime was registered in the station as no person sustained any bodily injury in the accident. The nd vehicle was entrusted with the 2 opposite party along with the General Diary entry, driving licence of the driver who drove the vehicle, insurance and registration nd st certificate. As per the direction of the 2 opposite party, the surveyor of the 1 opposite party inspected the vehicle and prepared a report. However, thereafter, there was no response from the part of the opposite parties.

3. On 17.07.2015, the complainant made a complaint to the 1 opposite party/insurance company and the Regional Office of the insurance company at Ernakulam. However, no response was received from the part of the opposite parties for repairing the vehicle or paying the insurance amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only). Due to the said act of the opposite parties, the complainant had suffered much mental pain and financial loss. Therefore, the above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4. The 1 opposite party filed version admitting the issuance of insurance policy covering the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 37 B 2278 for the period from st

23.10.2014 to 22.10.2015. The 1 opposite party contended that they had no information regarding the accident. The complainant did not entrust any document st st regarding the alleged accident with the 1 opposite party. The 1 opposite party was not aware about the survey conducted by the surveyor and his report regarding the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 37 B 2278. The complainant did not send any st claim to the 1 opposite party or the Regional Office at Ernakulam. The complainant st also did not give any estimate or bill regarding the vehicle to the 1 opposite party.

nd

5. The 2 opposite party filed version admitting the entrustment of the nd vehicle of the complainant with the 2 opposite party for repair due to the accident.

nd The 2 opposite party immediately intimated the first opposite party about the accident. The surveyor appointed by the first opposite party inspected the v