Date of filing : 11-07-2008 Date of order : 01-04-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.112/2008 Dated this, the 1st day of April 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Shanawas, S/o.Muhammadkunhi, ‘Green Yard’, Juma Mazjid Road, Kottikulam, } Complainant Rep.by his power of attorney holder, Shajeeb.M.A, S/oA.M.Muhammadkunhi, ‘Green Yard’ Juma Mazjid Road, Po.Kottikulam. (Adv. P.Narayanan, Hosdurg) The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, Branch office, Iind Floor, City point } Opposite party Building, M.G.Road, Kasaragod. (Adv. A.K.V.Balakrishnan, Kasaragod. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint are that the Maruti 800 Car bearing Reg.No.KL-14/C 8926 belongs to the complainant was stolen on 11-03-2006. The vehicle was duly insured with opposite party. The complainant lodged FIR before the S.H.O. Bekal and police registered the Crime No.112/06. Though the complainant preferred a claim before the opposite party, the same was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was subsequently traced out by Vittal Police and it is in the custody of Excise Department of Karnataka. Since the stolen vehicle is traced out the complainant can repossess the same and hence opposite party is not liable to honour the claim on the ground of theft or burglary. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 2. According to opposite party the vehicle was insured for Rs.1,45,000/- and the policy was issued to the registered owner. As against the claim of the complainant, he was asked to produce all claim papers including a non-detectable certificate from the police. But the complainant failed to produce the non-detection certificate since the vehicle was traced out and the vehicle is now under the custody of Excise Commissioner. E.I Bantwala, D.K. District, Karantaka and the complainant had not made any attempt to repossess the vehicle. As per the policy condition the company is liable to indemnify the owner only when the vehicle is undetected and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 3. Complainant filed affidavit as PW1 in support of his claim reiterating that is stated in the complaint. Exts. A1 to A8 marked. For opposite party Sri.T.P. Lakshmanan, Branch Manager, Kasaragod filed affidavit as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B3 are marked. Both sides heard and the documents perused carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant Sri. P.Narayanan argued that the policy nowhere provides that it is mandatory to produce Undetection Certificate from the concerned police to settle the claim and DW1 also deposed accordingly. 5. Ext. A7 is a letter dated 3-12-08 issued from the office of Deputy commissioner of Excise, D.K. District, Mangalore to the complainant. In the said letter the authorized officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, D.K. District, Mangalore has stated that the confiscation proceedings of the vehicle KL-14/C 8926 are pending before the said court and at that status the vehicle cannot be released in favour of RC Owner. 6. Therefore it is clear that the vehicle is under confiscation proceedings and as far as the complainant is concerned he had lost it irrecoverably since there is no provision to release a vehicle that is confiscated under the provisions of Abkari act. 7. Now the question arises for consideration is whether the opposite party is liable to indemnify the loss as per the policy Ext. B1 issued to the complainant or not? 8. As per Ext. B1 policy the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured against the loss or damage not only due to burglary house breaking or theft but for other reasons stated in the policy. Committing theft of a vehicle and using it for transporting contraband articles like illicit arrack is nothing but a malicious act. As per the policy issued, the opposite party is liable to indemnify the loss sustained to the insured due to the malicious act also. In case of malicious acts which causes loss to the insured the production of non-detection certificate is not at all relevant. Therefore non production of non-detectable certificate is not fatal for the settlement of the claim of the complainant on account of claim arising out of malicious acts. Hence repudiation of the claim of the complainant is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as envisaged under Consumer Protection Act. The insured’s Declared Value was Rs.1,45,000/- as per the policy issued to the complainant. Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees One lakh fourty five thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment along with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts.. A1. Photocopy of Power of Attorney A2. Photocopy of Final Report A3. 12-03-07 photocopy of letter issued by Supdt of Excise E.I.B.D.K Dist. Mangalore To C.I. of Police, Hosdurg. A4. 14-12-07 copy of lawyer notice. A5. Postal acknowledgement card. A6. Certificate issued by C.I. of Police, Hosdurg A7. 3-12-08 Endorsement A8. Photocopy of OS.No.46/2008 B1. Private Car Package Policy. B2. 3-6-08 copy of letter. B3. Postal acknowledgement PW1. Shabeeb.M.K. DW1.T.P. Lakshmanan Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTNDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
