IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 27th day of December, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.135/08 (Filed on 01.09.2008) Between: P.B. Premjith, Prem Nivas, Maroor. P.O., Enadimangalam, Adoor, Pathanamthitta Dist. (By Adv.K.N. Sujith) .... Complainant And: 1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Divisional Manager, Kollam Divisional Office, P.B.No.157, Hospital Road, Kollam – 691 001. 2. Branch Manager, Branch Office, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Collectorate, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Sam Koshy) 3. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. Rep. by Branch Head/Regional Head- 37/3453, 4th Floor, Noel House, Thirkkakkara, Padamugal, Ernakulam District. (By Adv. V.R. Hari) .... Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the case is as follows: The complainant is an Advocate at Punalur Bar. He is the registered owner of Maruti 800, bearing temporary Reg.No.CR. Tem/6564/04/Q valid from 30.7.04 to 5.8.04 and Engine No. 2760060, Chasis No.1982829 and Colour 26 U Super white. The above said vehicle was insured with 1st opposite party on 30.7.04 vide policy No.8193806 having validity from 30.7.04 to 29.7.05. On 4.8.04 the complainant had stationed the vehicle near the 1st Class Magistrate Court, Punalur and went for his professional engagement, and during that time the car has been stolen by unidentified persons. Immediately he informed the matter to the C.I. of Police, Punalur. The C.I. came to the spot and then passed wireless information to the nearby police stations. The complainant had also informed the matter to the Sarathy Automobiles Ltd., Kuttoor from where he had purchased the vehicle. At the time of theft the entire records of the vehicle was with Sarathy Automobiles Ltd., Kuttoor and hence the police officials were reluctant to register the crime. After submitting the records the police officials had registered a crime as Crime No.347/04 and submitted the final charge sheet before the Magistrate Court by saying that the vehicle is not traceable and the case may be closed. Due to the theft the complainant had suffered a loss of ` 2,13,000 and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are liable to give that amount to the complainant. 3. The vehicle was hypothecated to 3rd opposite party and as the vehicle has been stolen they can claim the amount from 1st and 2nd opposite party and not from the complainant. The matter was duly informed to the opposite parties and a claim form with relevant documents were submitted before 1st and 2nd opposite parties. But they have repudiated the claim by stating some untenable and illegal grounds. The repudiation of the complainant’s claim by the 1st and 2nd opposite party amounts to a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to get the loss amount (` 2,13,000) of the car from the opposite parties. Hence he filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the 1st and 2nd opposite party to pay an amount of ` 3 lakh as compensation to the complainant and to direct the 3rd opposite party, not to not proceed against the assets of the complainant without making the claim from 1st and 2nd opposite party and to pay cost to him. The complainant prays for granting the relief. 4. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have filed a version raising the following contentions: This opposite parties admitted the policy issued to the vehicle having Engine No.2760060, Chasis No.1982829. And also have admitted the claim filed by the complainant on 10.1.05 stating the theft of vehicle on 4.8.04. This opposite parties contended that the vehicle was allegedly stolen on 4.8.04. BUt the matter was reported to the insurance company only on 10.1.05. Apart from that there is inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police. It was reported to the police only on 25.8.04, i.e. after a period of 21 days. These aspects cast aspersions on the genuineness of the claim. On receipt of the claim this opposite party engaged an investigator, who also pointed out the falsity of the claim. The complainant had not produced the temporary registration of the vehicle despite request by registered letter dated 26.4.06. It was clearly mentioned in the said letter the necessity of intimating the theft to enable them to trace out the vehicle and also serious violation of policy condition by not reporting the matter to the insurance company. Apart from R.C. Book with tax token, copy of registered letter of intimation of theft to the concerned R.T.O with post acknowledgement, original and duplicate keys were sought to be produced. But the complainant miserably failed to comply with the aforesaid requirements. The investigator has found out that there is inconsistency in the version of the complainant, which disentitled the complainant from getting coverage under the insurance policy. The claim was duly processed by this opposite party with due application of mind and as such it cannot be said that the service of the opposite party was a deficiency so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence this opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. The 3rd opposite party has filed a version stating the following contentions: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The dispute is occurred in between the complainant and 1st and 2nd opposite parties. This opposite party admitted that there is a hypothecation agreement with the complainant. The complainant has failed to cite the deficiency in service committed by this opposite party. The relief claimed against this opposite party cannot be entertained by this Forum because the complaint is in respect of a civil dispute. The complainant is a defaulter and he is liable to compensate the 3rd opposite party for the loss sustained to them. The event of theft stated in the complaint has to be proved by the complainant through documentary evidence. The relief of the complainant can be realised only from the 1st and 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party is unnecessarily impleaded. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief from this opposite party. Hence the 3rd opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 6. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the above complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Relief and Cost? 7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral deposition of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A9 and one witness for the complainant who was examined as PW2. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of opposite parties. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 8. Points 1 to 3:- The complainant’s case is that his temporary registered new Maruti 800, car stolen from the premises of the 1st Class Magistrate Judicial Court No.3 Punalur while it was parking there. Immediately he informed the matter to the C.I. of Police Punalur who came to the spot and passed wireless messages to nearby police stations. The petitioner had also informed the matter to the Sarathy Automobiles from where he purchased the vehicle. The entire records of the vehicle was kept with the Sarathy Automobiles at that time and hence the police officials were reluctant to register the crime. After submitting the records they had registered a crime and submitted final charge sheet stating that the vehicle is not traceable and the case may be closed. Due to the theft of the car the complainant has suffered a loss of ` 2,13,000. The complainant’s vehicle was insured with 1st and 2nd opposite party. Hence he filed a claim before these opposite parties for getting the loss from them. But they have repudiated the claim by stating some untenable reasons. The vehicle was hypothecated to 3rd opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint against this opposite parties for getting the relief as sought for in the complaint. 9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant and one witness adduced oral evidence as PW1 and PW2 and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. Ext.A1 is the FIR dated 25.8.04 prepared by the S.I. of Punalur Police Station. Ext.A2 is the final charge and U.N. report dated 16.7.05 prepared by C.I. of Police, Punalur. Ext.A3 is the covering letter of the complainant issued at the time of production of documents, which was acknowledged by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A4 is the letter issued to the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A5 is the explanatory statement dated 16.3.05 given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A6 is the explanatory statement dated 19.1.05 given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A7 is the reply given by the Dy.Superintendent of Police, Punalur as per Right to Information Act to the complainant. Ext.A8 series is the bail application and statement of sureties in C.C.No.125/04 of Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court No.II, Punalur. Ext.A9 is the copy of insurance policy certificate. 10. The opposite parties counsel has cross-examined PW1. 11. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite party they have contended that the theft was reported to the police after 21 days. On receipt of the claim they engaged an investigator, who pointed out the falsity of the claim. The temporary registration certificate of the vehicle has not produced despite their request by registered letter. The complainant failed to produce the relevant documents necessary for processing the claim. There is no deficiency in service in processing the complainant’s claim. 12. In order to prove the contentions of 1st and 2nd opposite party there is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of this opposite party. 13. The 3rd opposite party contended that there is a hypothecation agreement between the complainant and this opposite party. The complainant is a defaulter and he is liable to compensate the 3rd opposite party for the losses sustained by them in the hypothecation agreement. The relief of the complainant can be realised only from the 1st and 2nd opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief from these opposite parties. 14. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the opposite parties. 15. On the basis of the above contentions, we have perused all the materials on records. Ext.A9 clearly proves that there is a valid insurance coverage at the time of theft of the complainant’s temporary registered car. According to the opposite parties 1 and 2 the theft took place on 4.8.04 but it was reported to the police only on 25.8.04 and it was reported to the insurance company only on 10.1.05. The inordinate delay caused by the complainant in reporting the theft and submission of documents the claim was repudiated. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had submitted explanations vide Ext.A5 and A6 before the opposite parties stating that he had informed the matter to the police officials at Punalur and C.I. of Police came over at the place of occurrence. Subsequently wireless message was passed to all nearby police station. The police officials didn’t told him the need of filing an official complaint. On 24.8.04 S.I. of Police informed him to file a written complaint and accordingly he made a written complaint. Hence delay caused for registering FIR. After getting the final report from police he filed claim before the opposite parties. Moreover Ext.A7 series the reply given by the Deputy Police Superintendent shows that a crime was registered and wireless message passed to nearby stations about this incident. 16. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties submitted that there is a serious violation of policy condition by not reporting the theft to company and the delay of submitting relevant documents. It is pertinent to note that the vehicle was stolen along with all the relevant documents besides that it was only temporarily registered vehicle. Ext.A3 letter shows that the complainant had submitted all the documents necessary for processing the claim on 17.9.07. Through Ext.A5 and A6 the complainant had given explanation for the delay caused for registering the crime and delay caused to lodging the claim. The main purpose of the policy is for indemnify the damage caused to the insured vehicle. The opposite parties have repudiated the claim only on hyper technical grounds. The repudiation of the complainant’s claim is only on technical grounds. The claim, which is otherwise genuine, the repudiation is unjust, arbitrary and made to defeat the spirit of C.P.Act. Hence we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the complainant’s claim only on the basis of the technical ground is a deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim amount from the 1st and 2nd opposite party. In the circumstances, we find that there is a clear deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties in repudiating the complainant’s claim. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are liable to pay the insured declared value of the complainant’s vehicle along with compensation and cost. The complainant has prayed for allowing to realise Rs.3 lakhs from the opposite parties. There is no evidence from the part of the complainant for proving such an exorbitant amount he entitled from the opposite parties. 17. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly thereby the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay the insured value of the complainant’s vehicle ` 1,81,362 (Rupees One Lakh Eighty One Thousand Three hundred and sixty two only) along with compensation of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of Rs.3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are directed to comply this order within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest of the above said amount will follow at the rate of 10% from today. However this Forum is not inclined to allow the complainant’s prayer against the 3rd opposite party in the absence of any evidence to show that the complainant had settled the transactions as per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement executed between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of December, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : P.B. Premjith PW2 : M. Sasidharan Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of FIR dated 25.8.04 prepared by the S.I. of Punalur Police Station. A2 : Final charge and U.N. report dated 16.7.05 prepared by C.I. of Police, Punalur. A3 : Photocopy of letter dated 17.9.07 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. A4 : Photocopy of letter dated 30.8.04 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. A5 : Photocopy of the explanatory statement dated 16.3.05 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. A6 : Photocopy of explanatory statement dated 19.1.05 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. A7 : Photocopy of letter dated 18.6.09 sent by the complainant to the Public Information Officer, C.I. Office, Punalur Police Station as per Right to Information Act. A7(a) : Reply of Ext.A7 letter dated 6.7.09 sent by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Punalur to the complainant. A8 & A8(a) : Photocopies of bail application dated 4.8.04 for the sureties of C.C.No.125/04. A8(b) : Photocopy of statement dated 4.8.04. A9 : Photocopy of insurance policy certificate. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: NilExhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) P.B. Premjith, Prem Nivas, Maroor. P.O., Enadimangalam, Adoor, Pathanamthitta Dist. (2) Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, P.B.No.157, Hospital Road, Kollam – 691 001. (3) Branch Manager, Branch Office, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Collectorate, Pathanamthitta. (4) Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. Rep. by Branch Head/Regional Head, 37/3453, 4th Floor, Noel House, Thirkkakkara, Padamugal, Ernakulam District. (5) The Stock File. | 
