KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 220/2008 JUDGMENT DATED:03..06..2010. PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.Ravi Sankar, Rohini, Cantonment North, : APPELLANT C/o Transworld Scales Services, Beach Road, Kollam. (By Adv:Sri.R.Ram Mohan) Vs. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Amar Jyothi Complex, : RESPONDENT Kadappakkada, Kollam. (By Adv:Sri.G.S.Kalkura) JUDGMENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the complainant and respondent was the opposite party in OP:62/05 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Kadappakkada, Kollam in not honoring the insurance claim preferred by the complainant as insured of the motor cycle bearing registration No:KL-02/P 4073. Thus, the complainant claimed the value of the insured vehicle which was stolen with compensation and cost. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. It was contended that the complainant violated the policy conditions and that there occurred delay of more than 25 days in informing the opposite party about the alleged theft of the vehicle. It was also contended that there was also inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in informing the police regarding the theft of the insured vehicle. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite party a witness was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 policy of insurance with the policy conditions was marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:30th August 2008 dismissing the complaint in OP:62/05. Hence the present appeal. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the appellant/complainant has given reasonable explanation for the delay in getting the police case registered and also in informing the opposite party/insurance company and submitted that there was no violation of the policy condition so as to repudiate the insurance claim. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. It is further pointed out the violation of the policy condition regarding the intimation of theft given by the complainant to the opposite party/insurance company and also the inordinate delay in informing the police. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. Points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent/opposite party in not honouring the insurance claim preferred by the appellant/ complainant with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No:KL-02/P 4073? 2. 2. Whether there was violation of the policy condition as contended by the respondent/opposite party? 3. Whether the Forum below can be justified in dismissing the complaint in OP:62/05? 5. Points 1 to 3:- There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant was the registered owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No:KL-02/P 4073 and that the said vehicle was insured with the respondent/opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Limited. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that the insured motor cycle was stolen on the night of 19/6/2003. Admittedly the police lodged the FIR on 16/10/2003 as crime No:789/03 of the Kollam East Police station. It is to be noted that the aforesaid crime was registered by the police under section 156 (3) of CRPC as the appellant/ complainant moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam. As per the direction under sec.156(3) of CRPC investigation was conducted by the police. The aforesaid complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam was filed on 12/8/2003. This would make it clear that the appellant/complainant caused much delay in getting the offence enquired and investigated by the police. The delay in moving the concerned authority is that the complainant orally informed the police about the theft of the vehicle and that the police failed to register a case and investigate the matter regarding theft of the vehicle. But there is no evidence other than the interested testimony of the complainant as PW1 to show that the complainant had informed the police immediately after the theft of the vehicle. There is also nothing on record to show that there occurred failure on the part of the police in registering a case with respect to the alleged theft of the vehicle owned by the appellant/complainant. Thus, it can be seen that the inordinate delay of 2 months in informing the police about the theft of the vehicle would create genuine doubt about the alleged theft of the vehicle. 6. Admittedly the appellant/complainant being the owner and insured of the vehicle was bound to inform the opposite party/insurance company about the alleged theft of the vehicle. Admittedly it was given only on 14/7/2003. No reasonable explanation has been offered by the complainant for the aforesaid delay in informing the insurance company about the alleged theft of the vehicle. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the date of the alleged theft stated in the claim intimation. It was submitted by the complainant on 14/7/2003. Admittedly in the said claim statement the date of theft of the vehicle was shown as 13/6/2003. But in the FIR the date of the alleged theft was shown as 19/6/2003. According to the appellant/complainant, the aforesaid discrepancy regarding the date of the alleged theft was only an inadvertent mistake. But in the ordinary course a person who lost his vehicle would not give an incorrect date about the theft of the vehicle. This discrepancy regarding the date of the alleged theft given in the claim statement and in the police case would create genuine doubt about the case of the complainant that his vehicle was stolen on the night of 19/6/2003. 7. The definite case of the appellant/complainant is that his motor cycle bearing registration No:KL-02/P 4073 was stolen from his house and he noticed the missing of his vehicle on the very next day morning. In such a situation a man of ordinary prudence will not keep quite. He would have taken all the necessary steps to get the stolen vehicle recovered. He should inform the concerned police and other authorities about the theft of the vehicle from his house. But in the present case on hand, the appellant/complainant was sitting idle. He was least bothered and least concerned about theft of his vehicle which occurred on the night of 19/6/2003. He informed the police after 2 months. He informed the insurer of the vehicle after 25 days. There occurred discrepancy regarding the date of theft of the vehicle. Thus, all the circumstances will go against the appellant/complainant. The facts and circumstances available in the case would make the case of the appellant/complainant unacceptable. 8. Ext.D1 policy of insurance with the conditions incorporated thereon would make it clear that it was incumbent upon the insured to inform the insurer about the theft of the vehicle. The aforesaid condition would also make it clear that the intimation must be given immediately to the insurance company. Condition No:1 of D1 is as follows:- “Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage. Every letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.” 9. The aforesaid condition would make it clear that it was the bounden duty of the complainant being the insured of the vehicle to give written intimation to the opposite party/insurance company about the theft of the vehicle. It was also the duty cast upon the appellant/complainant being the insured to inform the criminal act of theft of the vehicle to the police. It is also made it clear that the notice to the police must be given in writing. Thus, in all respects the appellant/complainant failed to follow the conditions incorporated in D1 policy conditions. So the respondent/opposite party/insurance company was at liberty to dishonour the insurance claim put forward by the appellant/complainant. There was clear violation of the policy condition as stipulated as condition No.1 of D1 policy conditions. Ext.P3 letter dated:18/6/04 would also give an indication that the appellant/complainant failed to submit the necessary documents which were called for by the respondent/opposite party. Thus, in all respects the respondent/opposite party/insurance company was justified in not honouring the insurance claim preferred by the appellant/complainant. The Forum below has rightly appreciated the facts, circumstances and available evidence on record. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be upheld as the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this commission. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated:30/8/2008 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP:62/05 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER VL. | 
