KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                     VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM      

                                                 APPEAL NO.427/10

                             JUDGMENT DATED 4.10.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            --  PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                     --  MEMBER

The Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Jyothi Super Bazar, Thodupuzha.P.O,

Idukki District.                                                         --  APPELLANTS                       (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)

                    Vs.

Devasia.K.S.

Kuninu House, Vazhakkulam.P.O,                           --  RESPONDENT

Moovattupuzha, Idukki District.                         

   (By Adv.R.Suja)

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.228/09 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.99,000/- with 12% interest  from the date of complaint and Rs.2000/- towards cots with respect to the loss of the Jeep insured with the opposite parties/appellants.

          2.          It is the case of the complainant that the Jeep owned by him and insured with the opposite parties was stolen on 21.3.06 in the mid night from the courtyard of the house.  The matter has been duly intimated to the  Vazhakulam Police Station.  The copy of the police records were produced.

          3.          The contention of the opposite parties/appellants is that complainant has not taken reasonable care as stipulated under condition No.4 of the policy. 

          4.          Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Exts. P1 to P5 and R1 to R4.

          5.          The appellant is disputing only with respect to the non-compliance of Condition No.4 of the policy.  The complainant had claimed a sum of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 18% and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  The Forum has only ordered the amount as assessed by the surveyor.

          6.          According to PW1, he had kept the key of the vehicle in a secret cabin inside the vehicle.  It is also stated that there was a watch dog in front of the house which amounted to reasonable care as stipulated in the policy according to him.      We find that the  claim cannot be rejected only on the above ground, especially, as the complainant has got a case that key was kept hidden in the jeep and also that there was a watch dog.             There is no dispute regarding the quantum of compensation awarded.  In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. 

7.          In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.

Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER

s/L