KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                     VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM   

                                        APPEAL NO.314/2010

                        JUDGMENT DATED 21.8.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

1.      M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Asif Ali Road, New Delhi,

Reptd. by its Divisional Manager,            --  APPELLANTS

Divisional Office – 1, Thakaraparamby,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2.      M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Vypass junction, Nilambur Road,

Manjery, reptd. by its Divisional Manager,

Divisional Office – 1, Thakaraparamby,

Thiruvananthapuram                                                                                  (By Adv.Varkala B.Ravikumar)

                   Vs.

Sukesh, S/0 Arumughan,

Tharayil House, Puzhambram,

Biyyam, Ponnani,                                      --  RESPONDENT

Malappuram.      

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC 213/08 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram.  The appellants are under orders to pay the assured amount of Rs.29,060/- to the complainant with interest at 6% from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.1000/-.

2. The matter relates to theft of a motorcycle insured with the opposite party/appellant.  The main contention is that there was a delay of one year in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the opposite parties.      It is also contended that the complainant has not produced the relevant documents including the duplicate RC of the vehicle.  It is also contended in the appeal memorandum that the complainant had obtained finance and it is possible that the vehicle might have been assessed by the financier.

3. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective parties and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B3.

4. We find that the contention with respect to the possibility of the vehicle having been seized by the financier is not mentioned in the version at all.  The opposite party/appellant has not taken any steps before the Forum to see that  the duplicate copy of the RC is produced.  Everything could have been subjected to an investigation by the opposite party which has not been done.  The appellant has not disputed the fact with respect to the quantum of compensation. 

          5. In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.       The appeal is dismissed in-limine.

          The office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU   --  PRESIDENT

s/L

.