Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dane Shom.M vs the Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,

Dane Shom.M vs The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 15, 2021
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1663450

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(C)/17178/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dane Shom.M

Respondent

The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,

Excerpt

.....the petitioner was rejected.3. subsequent to the filing of the writpetition, the petitioner produced ext.p10 award of ombudsman by which the request of the petitioner was rejected. pointing out that the petitioner had not disclosed the proceedings before the ombudsman, the insurance company raised an objection stating that the petitioner suppressed material facts while filing the writ petition that the petitioner had already approached the insurance ombudsman and a hearing was also over as on 19.08.2020 when the writ petition was filed.4. i am of the view that it is not necessary for this court to go into the saidobjection since i have already rejected a similar claim raised by a similarly situated petitioner in the judgment in w.p. (c)no.22273/2020, on the ground that the claim for adjustment of the premium can not be accepted, when the claim is raised after the expiry of the policy. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.sd/- p.v.asha judge dmappendix petitioner's exhibits: exhibit p1 true copy of the regular permit with its permit no.kl 77/6228/2004. exhibit p2 true copy of the rc book with endorsement. exhibit p3 true copy of the insurance certificate with its policy no.76100131180200010216. exhibit p4 true copy of the service verification report signed dated 14.01.2020. exhibit p5 true copy of the relevant pages of india motor tariff. exhibit p6 true copy of the request submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent dated 08.06.2020. exhibit p7 true copy of the reply issued by the 1st respondent before the petitioner dated 03.07.2020; exhibit p8 true copy of the request submitted by the petitioner before the insurance ombudsman dated 6.7.2020 exhibit p9 true copy of the reply dated 15.7.2020 exhibit p10 true copy of the award with its complaint no.koc-g-049-2021-0096 dated 21.10.2020respondents exhibits: nil //true copy// pa to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942 PETITIONER: DANE SHOM.M MEENATHETHIL HOUSE, NARAYANAN ASAN ROAD, KOCHI-19, NOW RESIDING AT KOOMBAYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 506. BY ADVS. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.P.ASHA RESPONDENTS:

1 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., RAVIPURAM BRANCH, VALLAMATTOM ESTATE, M.G.ROAD, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-682 015. 2 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 016. ADDL.3 OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, 2ND FLOOR, CC27/2603, PULINAT BUILDING. OPP.COCHIN SHIPYARD, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682015 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.03.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN WP(C)NO.17178. R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN R3 BY ADV. P.ASHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of March 2021

The petitioner seeks a direction to adjust the premium paid in respect of Ext.P3 policy of vehicle insurance. Ext.P3 policy was for the period from 22.03.2019 to 21.03.2020. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application for adjusting the premium towards the period during which the vehicle was not being operated, on the strength of Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, to the effect that the vehicle was garaged for the period from 01.08.2019 to 30.09.2019 and from 01.10.2019 to 31.12.2019. In Ext.P6 application, he requested for adjusting the premium for extension of the policy to the extent it related to the period covered by Ext.P4. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P7.

2. The Insurance company informed the

petitioner that endorsement can be done in the policy only when it is valid and also if it is intimated in a reasonable time. The certificate was issued by the transport authority on 14.01.2020 and at the relevant time there was no restriction due to Covid-19. Therefore, the request of the petitioner was rejected.

3. Subsequent to the filing of the writ

petition, the petitioner produced Ext.P10 award of Ombudsman by which the request of the petitioner was rejected. Pointing out that the petitioner had not disclosed the proceedings before the Ombudsman, the Insurance company raised an objection stating that the petitioner suppressed material facts while filing the writ petition that the petitioner had already approached the Insurance Ombudsman and a hearing was also over as on 19.08.2020 when the writ petition was filed.

4. I am of the view that it is not necessary for this Court to go into the said

objection since I have already rejected a similar claim raised by a similarly situated petitioner in the judgment in W.P. (C)No.22273/2020, on the ground that the claim for adjustment of the premium can not be accepted, when the claim is raised after the expiry of the policy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- P.V.ASHA JUDGE DM

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT WITH ITS PERMIT NO.KL 77/6228/2004. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK WITH ENDORSEMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE WITH ITS POLICY NO.76100131180200010216. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE VERIFICATION REPORT SIGNED DATED 14.01.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF INDIA MOTOR TARIFF. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.06.2020. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PETITIONER DATED 03.07.2020; EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN DATED 6.7.2020 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.7.2020 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD WITH ITS COMPLAINT NO.KOC-G-049-2021-0096 DATED 21.10.2020

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial