STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/474/2016 THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - A M BUILDING HOSPITAL ROAD NILAMBUR,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Dr.E K UMMER PRESENT ADDRESS - ELAMKULAM HOUSE HOSPITAL ROAD NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM ,KERALA.

ASHARAF PRESENT ADDRESS - PRIVATE SURVEYOR OF INSURANCE FIRST FLOOR WOODBINE COMPLEX MANJERI,KERALA.

THE MANAGER GERMAN MOTORS PRESENT ADDRESS - CHUNGAM Jn. WEST HILL CALICUT,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 12/02/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.474/2016 ORDER DATED : 12.02.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.390/2013 on the files of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

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

The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., A.M. Building Hospital Road, Nilambur (by Adv. S. Rajeev)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

Dr. E.K. Ummer, S/o Kunchassan, Elamkulam House, Hospital Road, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram

2.

Ashraf, Private Surveyor of Insurance, I Floor, Woodbine Complex, Manjeri

3.

The Manager, German Motors, Chungam Junction, West Hill, Calicut

4.

Kamarunneesa, W/o Dr.E.K. Ummer, S/o Kunchassan, Elamkulam House, Hospital Road, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram

5.

Janeesh, S/o Dr. E.K. Ummer, S/o Kunchassan, Elamkulam House, Hospital Road, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram

6.

Dr. Aneesh, S/o Dr. E.K. Ummer, S/o Kunchassan, Elamkulam House, Hospital Road, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram

7.

Dr. Saleesh, S/o Dr. E.K. Ummer, S/o Kunchassan, Elamkulam House, Hospital Road, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in C.C.No.390/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, the ‘District Commission’).

2. The complainant had a vehicle bearing registration No. KL 10 AC 1819 which had insurance coverage issued by the first opposite party. In order to renew the said policy, the complainant issued a cheque dated 06.02.2013 to the first opposite party. Accordingly, the policy was renewed from the dawn of 08.02.2013 for a period of one year. While so, the vehicle met with an accident on 08.02.2013 and as a consequence, the vehicle sustained damage. The complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.4,22,361/- towards the repair charges. The complainant informed the first opposite party immediately after the incident with regard to the accident and, accordingly, the first opposite party deputed the second opposite party, who was the surveyor of the first opposite party, to inspect the vehicle. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and filed a report. The complainant submitted a claim before the opposite party after paying the repair charges. However, the said claim was rejected by the first opposite party for the reason that the vehicle of the complainant did not have valid insurance coverage as on the date of the accident, even though the said vehicle actually had valid insurance coverage at the time of the accident.

3. The first opposite party filed a version admitting the accident. It was contended that even though the accident was at about 6 a.m. on 08.02.2013, the complainant had issued a cheque dated 07.02.2013 to the first opposite party after commencing office hours on 08.02.2013 concealing the accident and the first opposite party accordingly issued a policy in favour of the complainant. In the said circumstances, the complainant was not entitled to get any claim honoured by the first opposite party on the strength of the said policy. The surveyor, after inspecting the vehicle, reported that the complainant had sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.2,45,645/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs.4,83,397/- claimed by the complainant cannot be granted. Since t