This is a complaint fled under section 12 of consumer  protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `6,95,349 as  sum insured with 9% interest from 3.12.2007 till payment with `1,00,000 as compensation.

          The case of the complainant is that  he has purchased a Chevrolet Tavera having No.KL.13R.2151 through 2^nd opposite party and received the premium to insure the vehicle  and was insured from 8.12.06 to 7.12.07.The complainant  again paid sum of ` 21,027 to 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party  on 29.11.2007 through receipt NO.1395.The cost of the vehicle is `738977 and the vehicle was insured with 1^st opposite party and as per the terms of insurance theft is covered under the  insurance and 1^st posit party is liable to indemnify the complainant in the case of theft. The complaint was using the vehicle and was used to park at the residence of the driver M.K.Sajith and at Pallikunnu. While so on 3.12.07 at about 3.15am the driver parked the vehicle at the portico of the driver’s house and when he awakened at 5.15 am he saw the vehicle was stolen away Immediately the driver lodged a complaint and a crime was registered as 618/07 by Kannur town police and the incident was informed to the insurer also in time and 1^st opposite party issued a letter to complainant to produce the  final report filed by the police. The police filed a charge sheet under section 406, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 IPC on 16.6.2008 against E.M Ashraf, B Muhammed Navas and M.K.Sajith and accordingly the complainant obtained a certified copy of charge sheet with seizure mahazar and sent to the 1^st  opposite party on 19.9.09. As per the seizure mahazar, police could not trace out the vehicle involved in the crime. Again the opposite party issued a reply to produce final report under section 173 Cr. PC from the court declaring as the case as untraced. As  per the final report, the allegation against the accused is that on 3.12.07 at about 3 a.m the accused No. 1 to 2 take away the vehicle to Bangalore and sold out the same to an unidentified person for `30000 and 3<sup>rd</sup> accused obtained `17500 as his share. Which indicates that police could not traced out the person who purchased the vehicle from accused NO.1 and 2 and hence police could not trace out the person who purchased the vehicle and hence police could not proceed further to traced out the vehicle. Complainant could not instruct the police to filed final report as required by opposite party in their format. Even after lapse of 4 years police could not trace out the vehicle so the insurer is liable to indemnify the complainant. The police have stopped the investigation and hence there is no chance to trace out the vehicle for ever. The opposite party issued a letter on 23.9.10 by repudiating the claim. So after getting reply from opposite party, complainant again met the Kannur town police and they issued another certificates dt.24.9.10 stating that the vehicle has not been trace so far. So it is the duty of insurer to indemnify the insured for theft. The intention of 1^st opposite party is to escape from the legal liability rest with them. As the theft is occurred within one year of Insurance, depreciation is not allowed and is entitled to get the declare value in insurance policy. Hence this complaint.

In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version.1^st opposite party filed version challenging  the maintainability of the complaint regarding territorial jurisdiction  contending that complaint had taken the policy from the Chennai Regional office and hence thee is no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. The 1^st opposite party further admits that the complaint had taken a policy having NO.XPooo26303000100 valid from 8.12.06 to 7.12.07 with respect to the vehicle Cheverolet Tavera. It is also admitted that a theft claim was made by complaint and upon investigation by the opposite party it was found that, it was a case of breach of trust by the drive Mr.Sajith who had sold the vehicle to one Mr.Mohad Ashraf with the help of Mr.Navas and they in turn has told the vehicle to Mr.Reddy in Bangalore. The driver Mr.Sajith along with temporary driver was arrested and the investigation is on for recovery of the stolen vehicle. Even though  it was requested to the complaint to  produced final report stating the vehicle is untraced he has not produced the same. The complaint instead of submitting the documents has filed this premature complaint and hence it is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party is not liable to pay any sum to the complaint as the complaint has failed to comply with terms and conditions of the policy by not producing the final report. The opposite party should not able to process the claim if the complainant fails to produce the document. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. There is no cause of action for this complaint. So the opposite party is not liable for any amount claimed by complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          2^nd opposite party also filed version contending that the complaint is b elated and time barred and 2^nd opposite party is an unnecessary party. 2^nd opposite party admits that this complainant had purchased a Chevrolet Tavera on 912.06 for a total consideration of `7,38,977 and also admits that it was insured with opposite party and the theft of vehicle is covered by the insurance  policy. The perusal of the complaint would reveal that the subject matter of complaint is a dispute between the complainant and the insurance company and hence 2^nd opposite party has no role in it and hence 1^st opposite party is liable to indemnify the complaint. So the complaint against 2^nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of

    opposite party?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as

     prayed in  the complaint?

          3.  Relief and cost.

                    The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 and B1 to B5.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

          The complainant contended that even though his vehicle worth `7, 38,977 was  stolen and the same was insured with opposite party having  1DV 6,95,349 and the theft was covered by the policy conditions, the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party has not indemnified the complainant even after producing required document before opposite party. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1, and produced documents such as insurance premium  renewal receipt, copy of  FIR with seizure mahassar, letter dt.8.9.10, 23.9.10 and 1.10.10 , copy of certificate issued by Kannur Town police station and letter dated 7.8.09. In order to disprove the case opposite party also examined DW1, and produced documents such as FIR, letter by opposite party to complainant (8 in numbers), certified copy of policy, investigation report and authorization letter etc. The purchase and insurance was admitted by the opposite party. According to opposite party they have repudiated the claim only on the ground that the complainant has not submitted final report under section 173 Crpc from the court declaring the case as untraced even after repeated demand made by the opposite party. But Ext.A7 letter dated 7.8.09 issued by 1<sup>st</sup>  opposite party to complainant clearly states that they are in receipt of final report under section 173 Crpc from the  court on 9.7.09 with regard to the subject claim. Ext.A6 is also copy of a certificate issued by circle inspector of Police, Kannur Town to the effect that the vehicle bearing registration NO.KL.13-R.2151 has not been traced so far and the same was issued on 24.9.10 for producing before the insurance company. The complainant has produced Ext.A2 final report. In the seizure mahassar nothing is stated about the recovery of the lost vehicle and the final report A2 is dated 16.6.08 that means police has submitted final report under section 173 Crpc before JHFCM I Kannur and they had stopped their investigation. Ext.A2 final report says that the accused No.1 and 2 sold the vehicle to an unknown person. This shows the impossibility of recovering the vehicle. After the final report the complaint has submitted Ext.A6 before the opposite party. It is true that the complainant has not proved this Ext.A6 document. But along with the final report and other documents produced it is seen that the vehicle has not been traced so far. As per final report offence is under section 406 IPC. But as per section I(vii) of Ext. B3 policy malicious act is covered and the same was not disputed by opposite party. So it is seen that opposite party has failed to indemnify the complainant even after producing the required documents before opposite party. So we re of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party and hence they are liable to indemnify the complainant. Admittedly the vehicle was purchased during December 2006 and was lost during December 2007. So the vehicle was lost within one year. So as per Ext.B3 policy the vehicle has subjected to 15% depreciation for calculating the  IDV. So Ext.B3 specifically provide that with respect to the total loss the depreciation age- vize is 15% for the period exceeding six months but not exceeding one year. So the opposite party is entitled to deduct 15% of the cost of the vehicle of `7,38,977 which would work out `6,28,130 after depreciation and the complaint is entitled to get the above amount. The complaint is also entitled to get `2000 as cost and order passed accordingly.

                              In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1^st opposite party to pay `6,28,130 (Rupees Six lakhs Twenty eight Thousand one hundred and thirty only) towards the value of vehicle after deducting depreciation along with  `2000(Rupees Two thousand only)  as  cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order and  can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                          Sd/-                      Sd/-                               

                     President                Member 

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Receipt dt.29.11.07 issued from German Motors

A2. Copy of the FIR with seizure mahassar

A3 to A5. Letter dt.8.9.10, 23.9.10 and 1.10.10 issued by 1^st OP

A6. Copy of certificate issued by Kannur Town Police station

A7.  Copy of the letter dt.7.8.09 sent to complainant

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

B1.Copty of the FIR

B2. Copies of the letter sent to complainant

B3.Certified copy of policy

B4. Investigation report

B5. Authorization letter

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

 Witness examined for the opposite parties:

DW1.G.R.Prakash                               /forwarded by order/

                                                            Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.