<br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed this complaint for getting the entire claim amount of Rs.31,600/- with 12% interest and other reliefs.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is is the registered owner of the Kinetic Boss Motor cycle bearing registration No.KL.02/P 4073 [Engine NO.51042124, chassis No.510373556] which was purchased in the year 2003 under Hire Purchase Scheme with Kinetic Financiers and which was insured with the opp.party from the date purchase of the said vehicle. At the material time there was Package Policy for the said vehicle vide No.2003/4529. At the time of issuance of the above said package policy the opp.party fixed the market value of the above said motor cycle as Rs.31,600/- and for which an amount of Rs,777/- as the premium is paid by the complainant. The above mentioned vehicle belonging to the complainant thefted from the complainant’s residence in the midnight of 19.6.2003 which disclosed to the complainant on the very next morning The Kollam East Police Station had registered a crime case regarding the theft of the said vehicle as crime No.789/03 under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter of theft was informed to the opp.party by way of claim intimation form and accordingly a claim form was issued to the complainant by the opp.party. Thereafter the complainant put up the claim with the opp.party asd as insisted by the opp.party the complain ant produced all relevant records such as copy of RC book, Policy copy etc. Thereafter the complainant approached the opp.party several times for settling the claim but the opp.party did not settle the complainant’s claim. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for relief.<br /> <br /> The opp.party filed version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has approached this Forum with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts regarding the case. The definition complaint, complainant, consumer dispute service as defined in section 2[1] of the Consumer Protection Act do not cover the claim made out in the complaint. It is admitted that this opp.party had issued a comprehensive insurance policy in favour of the complainant for his Kinetic Boss motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-2P/4073 for period commencing from 10.1.2003 to 9.1.2004. The complainant had reported a claim with this opp.party on 14.71.2003 stating that the insured vehicle was stolen by somebody from his residence on 13.6.2003 in between 12 AM. In <br /> the claim form submitted by the complainant as well he has stated that the alleged theft was occurred on 13.6.2003 in between 12 am to 5 pm. Though the alleged theft was occurred on 13.6.2003.The complainant thereafter have produced copy of private complaint filed by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam on 12.8.2003 and the FIR registered by the Kollam East Police for the alleged theft of his vehicle. The opp.party therefore deputed an Investigatory Mr. Varghese Daniel for conducting an investigation as to be genuiness of the claim preferred by the complainant. The Investigator conducted a detailed investigation and submitted the report before this opp.party stating that the claim reported by the complainant is a doubtful case of theft. Though the Investigator personally met the neighbours of the complainant they were not aware of the alleged theft and not willing to give any statement before him about the alleged theft of the vehicle. The complainant has not given any proper explanation before this opp.party for the difference in the date mentioned by him about the alleged theft of the vehicle and also for the delay in giving notice to the opp.party about the alleged theft. The claim of the complainant could not settled by this opp.party on justifiable reasons and in adherence to the policy conditions and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party<br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P3 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked.<br /> <br /> Points 1 and 2<br /> <br /> It is not disputed that the complainant has taken Ext. D1. Policy and that policy was subsisting when the alleged theft of complainant’s car was occurred. The complainant submitted claim which was not allowed by the opp.party on the ground of non compliance of policy condition No.1 in Ext. D1 . As per policy condition No.1 the notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurance of the any loss of damage in the event of any claim. Now the question is whether the complainant had violated policy condition No.1. Complainant was examined as PW.1. During his cross examination he has deposed that 14.7. 2003.That statement show that the complainant has intimated the claim to the opp.party more than 25 days after the occurrence of the incident. Hence he had committed inordinate delay in reporting the claim in writing to the opp.party. Ext.P1 also shows that he was very careless in reporting the occurrence. As per Ext.P1 the complainant has reported the matter to the police on 16.10.2003. In Ext.P1 the date of occurrence mentioned is 19.6.2003. As per the complainant’s case the date of occurrence was on 13.6.2003. Hence there is discrepancy with regard to the date of occurrence to the police. As the complainant reported the claim to the opp.party on 14.7.2003, he has clearly violated the condition No.1 of Ext. D1. As per condition No.1 in Ext. D1 the intimation in writing shall be given immediately after the occurrence. So the complainant has violated the policy condition and the opp.party has got every right to reject the claim on the ground of violation of policy condition committed by the complaint. In these circumstances we are of the view that the non-allowing of the claim under condition NO.1 in Ext. D1 is proper. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 30th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Ravisankar<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – FIR<br /> P2. - UN Report<br /> P3. – Letter sent by opp.party to the complainant18..6.2004<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – N. Raju<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. –Policy and Condition.<br />