Dismissed

N.M.Thomas v. North Malabar Gramin Bank

Kerala HC23 May 2009WP(C)/12983/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to stay proceedings filed by him against the insurance company. The High Court declined to grant the direction, ruling that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Consumer Forum is independent of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Consumer Forum to keep proceedings in abeyance was refused.

N.M.Thomas Vs North Malabar Gramin Bank — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12983 of 2009(P) --------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶5

N.M.THOMAS, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, NIRAPPEL HOUSE, POST ELUMANNAM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DIST.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.C.D.JOHNY SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶8

NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, NILLODI BRANCH, P.O.EDAVAKA MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DIST.

¶9

M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.T. BUILDING, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD DIST.

¶10

KURIAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, MAKKOLIL HOUSE, EDAVAKA POST, MANANTHAVADY.

¶11

BRIJITHA KURIAN, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.KURIAN, MAKKOLIL HOUSE, EDAVAKA POST, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DIST.

¶12

JINCY, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.KURIAN, MAKKOLIL HOUSE, EDAVAKA POST, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DIST.

¶13

JITHIN, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.KURIAN, MAKKOLIL HOUSE, EDAVAKA POST, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DIST.

¶14

BY SC SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.GIRI, J

¶17

W.P.(C).12983/2009

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2009

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

A vehicle, belonging to the petitioner and purchased with a loan availed from the first respondent, was involved in a motor accident on 3.3.2006 and the driver of the vehicle expired. The legal heirs of the deceased moved the Workmen's Compensation Commission vide W.C.C.36/06. The insurance company, the second respondent, in the writ petition as well as before the Workmen's Compensation Commission denied existing coverage. According to the petitioner, the amount payable by way of premium had been paid by way of a demand draft and the Insurance company had taken the stand that the accident took place before the policy was revalidated. According to the petitioner, the stand taken by the insurance company is wrong and therefore, alleging inadequacy of service petitioner instituted a consumer complaint C.C.No.36/08 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

¶21

W.P.(C).12983/2009

¶22

¶23

Kalpetta, essentially for a direction to the insurance company to pay the complainant the award that could be passed by the W.C.C. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the CDRF, Kalpetta, to keep in abeyance further proceedings in the complaint pending disposal of W.C.C.36/06

¶24

I am impressed with the contentions taken up

¶25

by the petitioner. Petitioner herein is the complainant before the Consumer Forum. The contentions which are apparently taken up before the Consumer Forum would not have been the contentions taken up by him before the Workmen's compensation Commission also. The relief prayed for before the Consumer Forum is different from the defence taken up before the Commissioner. The petitioner may be entitled to maintain the complaint. But the jurisdiction being exercised by the Consumer Forum would not be dependent upon the jurisdiction to be exercised by the Workmen's

¶26

W.P.(C).12983/2009

¶27

¶28

Compensation Commission. In such circumstances, I do not find my way to issue a direction to the Consumer Forum to hold its hand in the matter of the proceedings lodged by the petitioner.

¶29

Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Consumer Forum, for keeping in abeyance the disposal of the complaint and if such a request is made, it is upto the Consumer Forum to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶30

V.GIRI, Judge

¶31

mrcs

N.M.Thomas v. North Malabar Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.M.Thomas v. North Malabar Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rev.Fr.George Rebeiro Vs State of Kerala and Ors.

B.Ramdas Associates Vs Chief Postmaster General

M. Mohanan Vs Direecgtor, Airport Authority of India

Augustine.P.J. Vs District Collector

Abdul Kasim Vs the Dist.Collector,Malappuram & Others

T.Prakasan Vs the District Collector,Malappuram & Ors.