State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Moothodi Ayathar, on 24 November, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/10/265 (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/02/2010 in Case No. CC 41/08 of District Kasaragod) 1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Moothodi ayathar ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 265/2010
JUDGMENT DATED:24-11-2010
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Elizabeth Alexander memorial Buildings, : APPELLANT
Marine drive, Cochin.
(By Adv.Sreevaraham.G.Satheesh)
Vs.
1. Moothodi ayathar,
S/o Madhavan, Kizhur Kadappuram,
Chandragiri.P.O, Kasaragod.
2. Shyamala Moothodi ayathar,
W/o Moothodi ayathar,
Chandragiri.P.O, Kasaragod.
(By Adv for R1 & R2:Sri.G.S.Kalkura)
: RESPONDENTS
3. The Commissioner,
The Kerala Fishermen's Welfare-
Fund Board, H.O.Thrissur.
4. The Managing Director,
Matsyafed, Kuravankoanam,
Trivandrum.
(By Adv for R4:Sr.P.K.Vijaya Mohan)
5. The Director of Insurance,
Kerala State Insurance Department,
Trivandrum.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the 3rd opposite party/insurance company in CC.41/08 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.1,50,000/- the assured sum with interest at 9% and cost of Rs.2000/-. Opposite parties 1 and 4 were also ordered to pay Rs.1.lakh at the above rate of interest. It was submitted that opposite parties 1 and 4 have paid the amount ordered.
2. The case of the complainants who are the parents of the deceased Kishor is that Kishor died on 14/2/2007 at 18.16 hours in a railway accident. He was a member of Kottikulam-Kasaba Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society. The death was an accident. The decease was covered under the Janatha Personal Accident Policy of opposite parties 3 and 4. Opposite parties 3 and 4 has contended that the deceased committed suicide and hence the above is excluded as per the policy conditions.
3. Evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to A12 and B1 to B8. The 4th opposite party did not produce the policy copy and hence the contention of the 4th opposite party was rejected. As already noted, the 1st opposite party has paid the amount due as per the policy issued by the 4th opposite party.
4. The 3rd opposite party/appellant had produced Ext.B7 paper cuttings and B8 final report. Ext.B7 paper cuttings are with respect to the suicide committed by a person who was unidentified. Ext.B8 is the final report of the police as per which the particular death was suicide. The Forum has observed that the extract of the case diary is not a substantive piece of evidence. Ext.B8 is a photocopy of the case diary. The 3rd opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence or any objective evidence or conducted any investigation in the matter. The contention of the appellant is exclusively based on Ext.B8 the photocopy of the case diary. Evidently the same cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence as observed by the Forum. All the same, in the circumstances, we find it is only proper that an opportunity has to be given to the appellants to adduce direct evidence in the matter. Hence the order is set aside on condition that the 3rd opposite party pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost, the Forum shall permit the parties including the 3rd opposite party to adduce evidence. The case stands posted before the Forum on 3/1/2011.
Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of the order to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL.
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT