THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No. 43/2009 Thursday, the 25th day of February, 2010. Petitioner : Tomy Joseph, Podimattathil House, Elampally P.O Anickadu, Kottayam. (By Adv. M.K. Gopalakrishnan Nair)
Vs.
Opposite party: : United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Parekulam Building, Near Collectorate, Kottayam Reptd. By its Divisional Manager. (By Adv. Satheesh Mathew Zacharias)
O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner is the owner and possessor of a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-5 U / 1036. Petitioner insured the said vehicle with the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 27,400/-. The vehicle was hypothecated to ING Vysya Bank, Kottayam Branch. According to the petitioner business partner of the petitioner Mr. Joeman, Karippal House was usually using the vehicle for business purpose under the permission of the petitioner. On 23..1.2..2006 while the vehicle was parked in front of Hotel, Mariya near KSRTC bus stand, Pala . vehicle was stolen from their. Joeman lodged a complaint before Pala Police Station and the police registered a crime No. 764/06. Police had not found out the vehicle so far. Petitioner lodged claim petition -2- before the opposite party. Opposite party rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground that there is no insurable interest to the petitioner on the above motor cycle. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in repudiating claim of the petitioner is a clear deficiency in service . So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Opposite party contented that as per the petition before the Police one Joeman, Karippal (H), Bharananganam lodged the complaint and he has not got any insurable interest. So, opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the petitioner and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Relief and costs.
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A8 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B6 documents on the side of the opposite parties. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced repudiation letter Dtd: 10..7..2007 and said document is marked as Ext. A5.In Ext. A5 it is stated that the theft of the motor cycle occurred while the vehicle was in the custody of Joeman, Karippal, Bharanangam and petitioner has no insurable interest on the vehicle and the contract of insurance become void. Opposite party in order to prove their case of sale of vehicle produced a statement issued by the -3- petitioner to the opposite party and another statement issued by Joeman K.C Said statements were marked subject to proof as Ext. B2 and B3. According to the opposite party from Ext. B2 and B3 it can be seen that vehicle of the petitioner was transferred to one Joeman. Opposite party further produced the report of an investigator Dtd: 30..6..2007 said document is marked as Ext. B4. As per Ext. B4 report the vehicle was transferred to one Joeman, Karippal House, Bharananganam. Opposite party has not taken any steps to prove their case of transfer of vehicle by examining the investigator. According to the investigator he contacted the Joeman KC and Tom Joseph and recorded their statement. Even though, the opposite party produced Ext. B2 and B3 statement they had not taken any steps to examine the Joeman KC and Tomy Toseph. So, opposite party failed to prove their case of transfer of vehicle. In our view act of the opposite party in repudiating claim of the petitioner is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result opposite party is ordered to pay petitioner an amount of Rs. 27,400/-, being the insured declared value, to the petitioner opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order. If the order is not complied within the stipulated time petitioner is entitled for 9 % interest from the date of order till realization Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
-4-
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of February, 2010.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner: Ext. A1: Copy of the policy schedule Ext. A2: Copy of the certificate of registration Ext. A3: Copy of the FIR Ext. A4: Copy of Crime Memo Ext. A5: Copy of repudiation letter Dtd: 10..7..2007 Ext. A6 Copy of lawyers notice Dtd: Nil. Ext. A7: Copy of postal receipt. Ext. A8: Copy of the statement of account of Tomy Joseph Documents for the opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of policy Ext. B2: Copy of statement of Joeman K.C Ext. B3: Copy of statement of Tomy Joseph Ext. B4: Investigation report of K. Chandran Ext. B5: Copy of repudiation letter Dtd: 10..7..2008 Ext. A6: Motor Claim Form.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Received on / Despatched on
amp/ 4 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
