IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 30th day of May, 2009. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.67/06 Between: K.K. Sreedharan, Sumi Nivas, Kunnamthanam Vilage, Anjilithanam.P.O. (By Adv. P.K. Babu) ..... Complainant. And: - Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., P.B.No.78, M.C. Road, Changanassery. Addl.2. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch. Addl.3. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kollam. (By Adv. P.D. Varghese) ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: A motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-3D/1252 of 1995 model owned and possessed by the complainant was stolen in the night in between 25.4.03 and 26.4.03 from his porch attached to his house. The said vehicle has a valid insurance policy with the opposite party’s at the time of the theft. 3. The complainant informed the theft of his vehicle to Keezhvaipur police station and a crime case No.91/2003, has been registered and the police filed final report stating that the vehicle could not been traced. The value of the stolen vehicle is Rs.20,000/-. Complainant approached the opposite party for compensation but they repudiated the claim. Therefore this complaint is filed for getting claim amount with compensation and cost from opposite parties for the loss and hardships caused by the complainant. 4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. But they admit the issuance of an insurance policy to complainant’s motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL.30/1252. They also admitted the theft of said vehicle occurred in the night in between 25.4.03 and 26.4.03. Police report states that complainant’s vehicle was stolen from the car porch along with vehicular records kept in the side box of the vehicle and the ignition switch key, which was kept on the key slot itself in a switched off position. Keeping the switch key in the vehicle itself unattended especially during the night, the complainant did not take reasonable precaution to avert a possible loss. Such an act amounts to negligence on the part of the complainant, which is not covered in a motor policy. Condition No.4 of the motor policy categorically stipulates that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss. Considering the above circumstances, the opposite party had repudiated the claim. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the opposite parties. Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. On the above pleadings, the following points are rasied for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief from this Forum? (3) Relief and Costs? 6. The evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him which are marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Opposite parties cross-examined the complainant. For the opposite parties, 1st opposite party has been examined as DW1 and the documents produced has been marked as Ext.B1 to B2. DW1 was cross-examined by the complainant. After the closure of evidence, both sides heard. 7. Point Nos. 1 to 3: Complainant’s case is that his motor cycle was kept and locked in his grilled porch. On the night of 25.04.2003, his vehicle kept in the porch was stolen. The said vehicle has a valid insurance with first opposite party. The police registered a case also for the theft. The value of the vehicle is Rs.20,000/-. His claim based on the policy was repudiated by the opposite parties and he is entitled to get the claim. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. Documents filed by him were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the invoice-dated 12.05.1990 of the motor cycle issued by Uma Motors and Services. Ext.A2 is the claim repudiation letter dated 14.12.2005 issued by opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.91/03 of Keezhvaipur Police Station regarding the theft of motor cycle. Ext.A4 iis the policy conditions issued by the opposite parties. 9. Opposite party’s contention is that complainant kept his motor cycle in his car porch in a switched off position and key in the vehicle itself. As per condition No.4 of the motor policy, the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe-guard the vehicle from loss. Complainant has not taken reasonable precaution to avert theft. Therefore, they have repudiated the claim. They state that what they have done is proper and legal. 10. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, first opposite party has been examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the condition No.4 of page No.2 of Ext.A4. Ext.B2 is the relevant portion of Ext.A3 FIR. On going through the evidence, it is learnt that there is no dispute regarding the theft of the motor cycle and the policy coverage. Opposite party’s dispute is that complainant has not taken reasonable precaution to avert a possible loss as stated in Ext.B1 condition. Complainant had kept the switch key in his vehicle itself, which caused the theft, thereby the complainant had violated the policy condition and hence he is not entitled to get the claim. 11. According to complainant, his motor cycle was kept in a grilled and locked porch and the gate of the house was also locked. But as per Ext.B2, it is revealed that the vehicle along with vehicular records kept in the box were stolen and the key was kept in the key slot and it was stolen from the porch. 12. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that the vehicle was kept in the car porch attached to the complainant’s house. This means that the theft occurred while the vehicle is in the custody of the complainant while it was kept in his private property and not from a public place. The motorcycle was in a safe place, i.e. in the car porch attached to his house. This does not mean that complainant has not taken any step to safeguard the vehicle from theft. Moreover, as per clause 1(b) of Ext.A4, opposite party undertakes to identify the insured from burglary house breaking or theft. In this case, opposite parties have not disputed that the instant case is not within the definition of theft. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim is unjustifiable and irrational. 13. Moreover, (in AIR 2000 SC 549) the Apex Court observed that “ the approach of the Insurance Corporation in the matter of repudiation of a policy admittedly issued should be one of extreme care and caution. It should not be dealt with in a mechanical and routine manner”. In this case, we are of the view that the opposite parties have not applied their mind while repudiating the complainant’s claim. Therefore, the complaint is allowable and maintainable and the opposite parties’ act of repudiation is a clear deficiency of service. 14. In the result, complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till this date. Complainant is also allowed to realise an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) from the opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to pay the amount so awarded in favour of the complainant within two months from this date of receipt of this order, failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum will follow for the whole amount till the whole payment. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2009. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : K.K. Sreedharan. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Invoice dated 12.05.1995 for Rs. 35,960/- issued by Uma Motors & Services, Hospet to the complainant. A2 : Registered letter dated 14.12.2005 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A3 : Photocopy of the FIR in Crime No.91/03 of Keezhvaipur Police Station. A4 : Policy conditions. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Paul. V. Zachariah. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Condition No.4 of page No.2 of Ext.A4. B2 : Relevant portion on the back side of Ext.A3 FIR. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) K.K. Sreedharan, Sumi Nivas, Kunnamthanam Vilage, Anjilithanam.P.O. (2) Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., P.B.No.78, M.C. Road, Changanassery. (3) Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch. (4)Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kollam. (5) The Stock File. | 
