DATE OF FILING : 23.12.2009.

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.228/2009

Between

Complainant :

 Devasia K.S.,

Kunninu House,

Vazhakkulam P.O.,

Moovattupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: K.M. Sanu &

Leenamole Sebastian)

And

Opposite Party :

 The Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Jyothi Super Bazar,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukk i District.

(By Adv: Pradeepkumar)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant is the owner of a Maheendra jeep bearing registration No.KL-7-Q-855. It was used for the personal purpose of the complainant. The jeep was insured with the opposite party as policy No.MV/2006/15464. On 21.3.2006, in between 1.30 am and 4.30 am, the jeep have stolen by some one from the courtyard of the complaintant's house. The matter was informed to the Police Station Vazhakkulam, and they have registered a crime as Cr.No.31/06. The matter was investigated by the police and the complainant also investigated the matter in his own personal risk. A charge sheet was filed by the Vazhakkulam Police with Pradeep and Subhash were arrived as accused. The jeep was not recovered by the Vazhakkulam Police and that matter was also reported in the final report of the police. The theft was informed to the opposite party and a claim form was also given to the opposite party by the complainant. The original registration certificate and other records of the vehicle were kept inside of the vehicle and they were also stolen with the jeep. Copy of this original documents were produced to the opposite party office and the matter was informed to them. Copy of the police records were also produced before the office of the opposite party, but the opposite party deliberately delayed the claim and instructed for producing original key and other records of the vehicle which is also stolen with the vehicle. The original key was kept inside, in the top berth of the vehicle, and this matter was informed to the opposite party. The theft of the vehicle was informed to the police, Regional Transport Office and the complainant is not entitled to get the insurance amount Rs.1 lakh from the opposite party and so the petition is filed.

2. As per the written version of the opposite party, it is admitted that the vehicle No.KL-7-Q-855 was insured with the respondent in the name of Mr.K.S.Devasia, Kunninu House, Kavana,Vazhakkulam P.O., for the period from 10.1.2006 to 9.1.2007, for Declared Value of Rs.1 lakh. The maximum liability of the policy of insurance is Rs.99,000/- after considering compulsory deductible of Rs.1000/-. It is also admitted that the complainant filed a claim for compensation for the loss of insured vehicle. But on 23.5.2006, this opposite party sent a letter to the insured requesting him to furnish the following:
 

a. Certified true copy of FIR

b. Copy of registered letter addressed to the concerned RTO informing theft of the vehicle with A/D card.

c. Original R.C. Book.

d. U.D. Certificate from police authority.

e. Ignition keys in duplicate

f. Final investigation report U/S 173 Cr. P.C. Duly accepted by the court.

g. Extract of R.C noting theft of the vehicle.

h. Original Insurance Certificate.
 

Inspite of the repeated requests, complainant produced only certified copy of FIR, ignition keys in duplicate and final investigation report U/S 173 Cr. P.C duly accepted by the court. The complainant sought time to produce balance documents. Hence the opposite party again sent registered notice dated 30.3.2009 requesting him to produce the balance documents. While scrutinizing the claim, it was found that the complainant had kept the key in the vehicle itself and there is every likely hood that the vehicle would have been stolen by using the key. Gate of the compound was also seen not locked. As per conditiion No.4 of the policy the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. In this case insured wilfully violated policy conditions. So the repudiation of the claim is legal and it is reported to the complainant on 30.9.2009.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence is adduced by the opposite party and Exts.R1 to R4 marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting insurance amount of the vehicle which was stolen from the residence of the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the copy of the RC Book of the vehicle. The vehicle was stolen from the compound of the complainant's house on 21.3.2006. The matter was informed to the nearest police station Vazhakkulam. The police registered the crime as crime No.Cr.31/06 U/S 379 of IPC. The copy of the FIR is marked as Ext.P2. When the claim was filed before the opposite party, they sent a letter to the complainant to produce certified copy of documents and it was truly replied by the complainant stating that the original RC Book of the vehicle, key of the vehicle and original insurance certificate of the vehicle were stolen with the vehicle. Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter dated 10^th September, 2009, written by the complainant stating the same. Ext.P5 is the repudiation letter received from the opposite party stating that the claim was repudiated. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW1 deposed that the stearing of the vehicle was not locked. Usually the complainant never lockes the stearing at his residence. The key was kept in a secret cabin in the jeep. That is a berth in the top of the driving seat of the vehicle. The gate was not locked. Usually the complainant never lockes the gate of his house. But there is dog in front of the house for the security of the same. Ext.R1 is the copy of letter written by the opposite party to the complainant on 23.5.2006 for producing the documents which were not produced by the complainant. Policy certificate is produced by the opposite party and it is marked as Ext.R4.

The complainant parked his jeep in front of his house in his compound, but the gate was not locked, usually, the complainant never locks the gate of his compound wall because there is a dog in front of the house for the security of the house. The original key of the vehicle was kept inside a secret cabin of the vehicle which is known as berth and the original papers of the vehicle were also kept inside there. The opposite party contended that the original documents were not produced by the complainant and so the delay accused for the same. But the original documents were stolen with the jeep and this matter was duly informed to the opposite party by the complainant as per Ext.P4 letter. The RC particulars and other details of vehicle were produced by the complainant and photograph of the jeep was also produced by the complainant to the opposite party. The opposite party also admitted the policy which is Ext.R4, but the claim was repudiated because as per condition 4 of the policy, the insured would take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured, from loss or damages and maintain it in an efficient condition. The complainant violated the condition 4 of the policy and so the complainant is not eligible for the claim. But we think that the vehicle was parked in the compound of the complainant's residence, the key of the vehicle was kept in a secret cabin inside the jeep in the top of the seat and there was a dog for the security of the vehicle in front of the house. So the complainant has taken all the effective measures to safeguard the vehicle as an ordinary prudent man does. It may be true that the original documents of the vehicle were kept inside of the vehicle and it was duly informed to the opposite party. All other records such as FIR, RTO report and police charge were produced by the complainant to the opposite party. So the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to pay the insurance amount of the vehicle which the opposite party stated in the written version as Rs.99,000/-. As per written of the opposite party, the maximum liability of the policy of this case of the vehicle is only Rs.99,000/- after considering the compulsory deduction of Rs.1,000/-.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the insurance amount of the vehicle Rs.99,000/- with 12% interest to the complainant from the date of this petition and Rs.2,000/- for cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of February, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - K.S. Devasia.

On the side of the opposite party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of the R.C.Book

Ext.P2 - Copy of the FIR dated 21.3.2006.

Ext.P3 - Copy of the Final Report of the Vazhakkulam Police.

Ext.P4 - Copy of the reply letter dated 10.9.2009, by the complainant to the opposite party.

Ext.P5 - The repudiation letter dated 30.9.2009 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Ext.R1 - Copy of the letter dated 23.5.2006, written by the opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.R2 - Copy of the letter dated 30.3.2006 written by the opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.R3 - The acknowledgement card of the Ext.R2 letter which is signed by the complainant.

Ext.R4 - Insurance Policy Certificate of Policy year/No.2006/15464.