SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1473

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL MAJEED – Respondent
SC/32/A/629/2017



Petitioner Advocates:PRASANNA KUMAR NAIR ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

KERALA

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/629/2017

MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

PRESENT ADDRESS - KOZHIKODE ROAD, MANJERI.P.O, MALAPPURAM,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

ABDUL MAJEED

PRESENT ADDRESS - AYSHA BUILDING, MANJERI ROAD, WANDOOR.P.O,

MALAPPURAM,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: 28/01/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.629/2017

ORDER DATED : 28.01.2026

(Against the in C.C.No.301/2014 on the files of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

##PAGE2##

SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Manager, M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kozhikode Road, Manjeri P.O.,

Malappuram

(by Adv. Prasanna Kumar Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Abdul Majeed, S/o Kuttiman, Aysha Building, Manjeri Road, Wandoor P.O.,

residing at Puthyath House, High School Road, Wandoor P.O., Malappuram

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.301/2014 on the files of the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, ‘the

District Commission’).

##PAGE3##

2. The complainant was the registered owner of a Maruthi Swift car bearing

registration No. KL 10 AD 5885 which had insurance coverage for the period from

28.08.2013 to 27.08.2014 issued by the opposite party. While so, on 19.10.2013, the

car met with an accident and as a consequence, the car sustained damage. The car was

taken to the workshop as per the instruction of the insurance surveyor. The estimate

for the repair supplied by the workshop was Rs.2,58,000/-. Since the said amount was

exorbitant, the car was taken to ABS Motors, Nilambur for repair. ABS Motors

estimated the repair charges as Rs.2,11,107/-. The surveyor also accepted the said

proposal. As per the directions of the opposite party, the complainant paid the bill

amount of Rs.2 lakh to ABS Motors after getting the car repaired. Thereafter, the

complainant submitted the claim before the opposite party. However, the claim was

not honoured by the opposite party, stating that the son of the complainant was driving

the motor vehicle at the relevant time and that he was drunk while driving the vehicle.

The complainant was actually driving the vehicle at the relevant time.

3. The opposite party filed a written version admitting the ownership and the

policy coverage of the vehicle. However, the opposite party contended that the son of

the complainant, namely, Baiju P. Majeed was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.

He was accompanied by his friend Savaf also. In the accident, both Baiju and Savaf

sustained injuries. The doctor who examined Baiju reported that he was in a state of

drunkenness. The accident was reported to the opposite party by the said Baiju. The

##PAGE4##

claim form was also signed by him and not by the complainant. No police case was

registered in connection with the incident. The opposite party deputed an investigator

and the investigator took the signed statements of the complainant, his son Baiju and a

third party. The surveyor reported that the net liability of the opposite party was

Rs.1,09,704/- and the surveyor filed a report in this regard before the opposite party on

22.12.2013.

4. Before the District Commission, both the complainant and the manager of

the opposite party filed proof affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked for the

complainant and Exhibits B1 to B9 were marked for the opposite party. After

evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to pay

Rs.1,09,704/- towards the expenses for repairing the vehicle, to the complainant. The

District Commission further directed the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- as

compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top