By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Complainant is the owner of TATA INDICA DLE 2000 model car with registration number PY-01/P 5365. The vehicle was insured with opposite party. During the currency of the policy the vehicle was stolen in the night between 22-5-05 and 23-5-05. On 27-6-05 complaint was lodged before the Manjeri police who registered a crime as No.489/05 under section 379 IPC. This case was referred as undetected. The theft of the vehicle was informed to Pondicherry Registration Authority. The claim preferred before opposite party was repudiated for the reason that the theft of the vehicle was not reported immediately to opposite party. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party filed version stating that originally, the vehicle was owned by Sri.V. George and the policy also stood in his name. During the subsistence of the policy on 20-5-05 the policy was transferred to the name of complainant as per request. It is specifically stated that complainant has not informed about the alleged theft on 23-5-05. That till 04-7-05 opposite party had no information regarding the incident. That the alleged incident of theft is not genuine. The long delay in reporting the incident denied opportunity to police as well as opposite party to conduct a fair enquiry to the matter of finding out the truth. The claim appeared to be false and opposite party rightly denied liability and this fact was intimated to complainant. There is no deficiency in service and complaint is to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by complainant and opposite party. Exts.A1 to a4 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 and B2 marked for opposite party. Both sides have not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> <br /> 4. Points that arise for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service?<br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> The undisputed fact of this case is that the vehicle PY-01/P 5365 owned by complainant was insured with opposite party. The complaint is resisted by opposite party on the main ground that there was delay in reporting the incident of theft and that the alleged theft of vehicle is not genuine. According to complainant the vehicle which was parked in the car shed of his house on 22-5-05 was found missing in the morning on 23-5-05 at 6 am. Apparently there is some delay in registering the complaint before the police. As per the evidence tendered through affidavit supported by sufficient pleadings it is stated that though he informed Manjeri Police and opposite party on 23-5-05 he was instructed to enquire and verify with the previous owner in respect of any financial liabilities to rule out the possibility of seizure of the vehicle by financiers. Ext.A3 is the First Information Report registered on 27-6-05 ie; almost one month after the incident. In Ext.A3 complainant who is the first informant has given his statement and explanation for delay in lodging the First Information Report. Ext.A3 is consistent with the reason stated in the complaint and affidavit. Further this explanation is congruous with Ext.B2 which is the letter given to opposite party by complainant on 04-7-05. Ext.A4 is the refer report issued to complainant by Manjeri police stating that the crime is referred as undetected. Ext.A4 is dated, 31-12-05 and is issued almost six months after lodging the complaint. Counsel for opposite party Sri.P.V.Sethumadavan vehemently argued that the delay in reporting the incident has denied opportunity to opposite party as well as police to investigate and find out the genuineness of the complaint. We are unable to agree fully with the counsel for opposite party. In our country police is the legally recognised investigation agency. Lodging of the complaint, sets the low into movement. Police has conducted investigation and has reported the vehicle/case to be undetectable. The only question is whether the explanation for delay in lodging the First Information Report is reasonable or not. In the case of a vehicle which was recently purchased it is only natural and normal for the owner to trace the previous owner with the help of the vehicle broker and make enquiries whether there was any financial liability with any financiers. Complainant has put forward a consistent explanation for the delay caused in reporting the loss of vehicle which we accept to be probable and believable. We do not find any reason to disbelieve Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 documents. Though opposite party contends that theft of vehicle is a cooked up story no shadow of evidence is adduced to controvert the case put forward by complainant. From the above discussions we have no hesitation to conclude that the vehicle was lost by theft. The vehicle was insured with opposite party and therefore complainant is liable to be compensated by opposite party. The act of opposite party in repudiating the claim on flimsy grounds without any strong and cogent evidence is unsustainable. We find opposite party deficient in service.<br /> 6. Point (ii):-<br /> Complainant is definitely entitled to compensation as per the policy. The insured declared value of the vehicle in A2 policy during the currency of the policy is Rs.1,62,500/- In our view, the above amount along with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint would be sufficient compensation to the complainant <br /> 7. In the result, we allow the complaint and order opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,62,500/-(Rupees One lakh, sixty two thousand and five hundred only) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation along with costs of Rs.1,500/- (Rupes One thousand five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 8th day of July, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4<br /> Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Certificate of Registration in respect of <br /> vehicle No. PY-01P 5365<br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Insurance policy issued by opposite party<br /> to the complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the First Information Report dated, 27-6-05<br /> prepared by K.K. Radhakrishnan, S.I. of Police, Manjeri.<br /> Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the Notice to informants issued by C.I. Of<br /> Police, Manjeri to complainant dated, 31-12-05. <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2<br /> Ext.B1 : Registered with A/D letter dated, 03-3-06 send by <br /> opposite party to complainant. <br /> Ext.B2 : Request from complainant to opposite party dated, 04-7-05<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER